GUEST COMMENTARY--One has to wonder whether the adults in charge of the LA Times Editorial Board were part of the recent mass exodus from the Times. The question is raised because of a most recent rambling editorial concerning the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, demonstrating yet again the Times’ antipathy towards law enforcement. 

In an editorial ostensibly concerning a delay in the Board of Supervisor's implementation of a "Civilian Oversight Commission", the Times took a bizarre turn and pontificated about several recent shootings involving Los Angeles County Sheriff deputies. The Times questioned the "training" and "fitness" of the deputies involved, wondered aloud whether they were "trigger-happy deputies" whose "tactical training" may have been lacking, and for good measure threw in a random sentence asking if the Sheriff's Department disproportionately targets African Americans. 

That the Times editorial writer didn't know the complete facts of the three shootings it questioned was no hindrance to making accusations against the hard working deputies involved and the Sheriff's Department as a whole. 

Of course, the Times is hardly a supporter of law enforcement, and it clearly pains them to say anything positive about law enforcement officers. Witness, for example, the July editorials following the assassinations of five police officers in Dallas and three officers in Baton Rouge.  

Following the Dallas cold blooded murders that shook the nation, the Times wrote a nine-paragraph, 836-word editorial. Exactly one paragraph and 81 perfunctory words were devoted to officers brutally murdered before the Times segued into what it would rather discuss: "police brutality", "police shootings" and "racial disparities" in the criminal justice system. 

The reporting of the ambush murder of three law officers and wounding of three others in Baton Rouge illustrated how difficult it continues to be for the Times Editorial Board to express concern over the killing of law enforcement officers. This time, the Times could only muster up a scant four paragraphs concerning the killing, with a mere three sentences devoted to the death of the officers before the Times editorial once again turned to what it would rather discuss, devoting the majority of the editorial to pontificate on "accountability" for law enforcement and the "friction" between police and the community they serve.  

The Times view as summed up by the repulsive headline "Cops killing civilians, civilians killing cops.  How do we fix this" -- suggesting some moral equivalence between police shootings and the cold-blooded and calculated murders of multiple law enforcement officers! 

Finally, as to the Editorial Board's belief that accountability will only come from "Oversight Commissions" filled with political appointees, it conveniently ignores the fundamental way citizens of this great country determine the direction of their public agencies, including the Office of the Sheriff. It is called elections. Every four years, elected Sheriffs  must justify their performance and that of the department they lead, with anybody who has a different view with law enforcement experience free to run against the incumbent Sheriff in support of a different vision. That is real accountability!

(George Hofstetter is President of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. ALADS is the collective bargaining agent and represents more than 8,200 deputy sheriffs and district attorney investigators working in Los Angeles County.  He can be contacted at [email protected]. Mr. Hofstetter’s views do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

DEEGAN ON LA-A mega-development on Sunset Boulevard and a big project on Wilshire Boulevard are being erected in what could be seen as northern and southern anchors for the “towering” of Crescent Heights Boulevard, a secondary highway that runs through the heart of well-established, charming neighborhoods west of Fairfax Avenue. Will these two projects, UDR at Wilshire Crescent Heights (photo rendering above) and 8150 Sunset Blvd become bookends, making the 2.5 mile stretch of Crescent Heights Boulevard between them the next “canyon of towers”? 

Lots of people in the neighborhoods surrounding these two projects are uneasy. Is it possible that more of Crescent Heights Boulevard will be dotted with similar mixed-use towers? Will there be a north-south canyon of tall buildings strategically placed at key intersections like Wilshire, Third, Beverly, Melrose, Santa Monica, and Sunset? The upside could be that these major east-west major streets intersecting with north-south Crescent Heights could become the spokes connected to the Crescent Heights spine, helping to create a pocket of hubs for “new urbanism” communities in Beverly Grove, West Fairfax and parts of West Hollywood. 

The goal of “new urbanism” is to live, work, shop and play all within the same neighborhood, enabling residents to rely less on cars and use alternative forms of transportation, like walking, biking and mass transit to get around. Considering its central location, these attributes could make the increased development along Crescent Heights attractive. 

Some very good north-south rapid transit lines (the 780 express, the 217 local and the DASH Fairfax) run on Fairfax, just a couple blocks east of Crescent Heights. And each of the major intersecting boulevards has its own rapid transit routes, providing east-west mobility. 

That kind of mass transit access is one of the criteria for Transit Oriented Development (TOD), the development model for creating a mixed-use tower of residential and retail close to a transit route, reducing reliance on automobiles. 

The twenty-four possible corners of Crescent Heights on six major cross streets that can be targeted as ideal spots for towers could have great allure for developers. That would provide lots of mixed use housing, retail and gentrification for the thirty streets between glamorous Sunset Strip and commercial Wilshire Boulevard. The fact that most TOD projects offer minimal affordable housing, with tenants still relying on their cars, has not stopped planners and politicos from approving these projects. They continue to justify them by pointing to the convenience of adjacent mass transit, a useful fiction to keep the buildings coming. 

Right now, Koreatown, Silver Lake, Boyle Heights, Highland Park and South Los Angeles are receiving a lot of gentrifying, towering attention. Vermont, La Cienega, La Brea, Vine, Highland, and Western are some of the major north-South streets that are currently being “towered.” Add on to that Crescent Heights? 

In an era when no community is an island it’s open season for developers. Can it be long before Fairfax, one of the really badly traffic-snarled transportation corridors on the west side of town, is skipped over in favor of Crescent Heights? Are the developers already mapping this out? Only those that protect themselves with Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) status can feel safe. 

Of these tracts, Beverly Grove (with boundaries of Wilshire-San Vicente on the South, West Hollywood on the north and northwest, Beverly Hills on the west and Fairfax on the east) may be at risk. With the exception of a few protected residences and small apartment buildings, it has very little city-backed historic cultural monument status, or HPOZ protection, that would block tearing down houses. 

However, neighborhood activists have been successful at modifying what goes up by using other measures to control development, implementing solutions like Interim Control Ordinances, the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ranges, and the prospective Neighborhood Conservation Initiative. While these efforts may affect what might go up, it does not stop the wrecking ball from bringing structures down the way historic cultural monument status does. 

If there is to be growth in this area of town, coveted for its central location and attractive housing and close-by amenities, Crescent Heights and adjacent neighborhoods may be a sleeping giant waiting to be woken by developers. The neighborhoods along Crescent Heights could be caught by surprise, with cranes and work crews arriving sooner than anyone expects. The city’s out-the-window zoning codes are no match for aggressive developers who see enterprise potential where others see charm and community. 

Ideally situated in old neighborhoods with lots of 1920’s era Spanish-Mediterranean houses, this tract of less than two square miles along Crescent Heights could be transformed into clusters of “new urbanism” that are easily accessible to the clubs, shopping, restaurants and the nightlife of West Hollywood and the Sunset Strip; to the historic Farmers Market; to the Grove dining, shopping and entertainment complex; and to the multiple cultural offerings of Museum Row, which itself is undergoing a huge transformation. Having a Metro Purple Line Subway stop at Wilshire and Fairfax will add to the allure of living in the Crescent Heights pocket. You could live here as a “new urbanist” and not have to go very far for most everything you desire. It might be just what a future, younger demographic will want. It could easily be styled as the Echo Park or Silver Lake of the west side. 

The two and a half mile distance between 8150 Sunset and UDR at Wilshire Crescent Heights is very low-density right now. Is that a good thing? Or, rather, is it a good sign that the area is ripe for growth into “new urbanism communities” that will be anchored by mixed use towers and all the amenities that drive transformation? 

(Tim Deegan is a long-time resident and community leader in the Miracle Mile, who has served as board chair at the Mid City West Community Council and on the board of the Miracle Mile Civic Coalition. Tim can be reached at [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

NEW GEOGRAPHY--“Old in error,” writes historian Kevin Starr, “California remains an American hope.” Historically, our state has been a beacon to outsiders seeking a main chance: from gold miners and former Confederates to Midwesterners displaced by hardship, Jews seeking opportunity denied elsewhere, African Americans escaping southern apartheid, Asians fleeing communism and societal repression, Mexicans looking for a way out of poverty, counter-culture émigrés looking for a place where creation can overcome repression.

Yet, this notion of California as a land of outsiders is being turned on its head, our state’s dream repackaged — often with the approval of its ruling hegemons — as something more like a medieval city, expelling the poor and the young, while keeping the state’s blessings to the well-educated, well-heeled, and generally older population.

Some boosters of the current order, such Gov. Jerry Brown, contend that the affluent and the educated are still coming, while the less educated and well-heeled, are leaving. They cite this as evidence that the “declinists” are wrong. Yet, the reality remains that California is losing its allure as a place of opportunity for most.

COMING AND GOING--California has been “bleeding” people to other states for more than two decades. Even after the state’s “comeback,” net domestic out-migration since 2010 has exceeded 250,000. Moreover, the latest Internal Revenue Service migration data, for 2013-2014, does not support the view that those who leave are so dominated by the flight of younger and poorer people. Of course, younger people tend to move more than older people, and people seeking better job opportunities are more likely to move than those who have made it. But, according to the IRS, nearly 60,000 more Californians left the state than moved in between 2013 and 2014. In each of the seven income categories and each of the five age categories, the IRS found California lost net domestic migrants.

Nor, viewed over the long term, is California getting “smarter” than its rivals. Since 2000, California’s cache of 25- to 34-year-olds with college, postgraduate and professional degrees grew by 36 percent, below the national average of 42 percent, and Texas’ 47 percent. If we look at the metropolitan regions, the growth of 25- to 34-year-olds with college degrees since 2000 has been more than 1.5 to nearly 3 times as fast in Houston and Austin as in Silicon Valley, Los Angeles, or San Francisco. Even New York, with its high costs, is doing better.

In fact, the only large California metropolitan area which has seen anything like Texas growth has been the most unlikely, the Inland Empire. The coastal areas, so alluring to the media and venture capitalists, are losing out in terms of growing their educated workforces, most likely a product of high housing prices and, outside of the Bay Area, weak high-wage job growth.

The location of migrants tells us something about where the allure of California remains the strongest, and where it has been supplanted. Almost all of the leading states sending net migrants here are also high-tax, high-regulation places that have been losing domestic migrants for years — New York, Illinois, Michigan and New Jersey. In contrast, the net outflow has been largely to lower-cost states, notably Texas, as well as neighboring Western states, all of which have lower housing prices.

And, finally, there is the issue of age. Historically, California has been a youth magnet, but that appeal is fading. In 2014, according to the IRS data, more than two-thirds of the net domestic out-migrants were reported on returns filed by persons aged from 35 to 64. These are the people who are most likely to be in the workforce and be parents.

CLASS AND ETHNIC PATTERNS--Upward mobility has long been a signature of California society. Yet, 22 of the state’s large metro areas have seen a decline in their middle class, according to a recent Pew Research Center study. Los Angeles, in particular, has suffered among the largest hollowing out of the middle-income population in the country. In places like the Bay Area, there’s a growing upper class, while in less glamorous places like Sacramento, it’s the low end that is expanding at the expense of the middle echelons.

The economy, too, has been tending toward ever more bifurcation, with some growth in tech and business services, largely in the Bay Area. Elsewhere, the overwhelming majority of jobs created since 2007 have come from lower-paying professions, such as health and education and hospitality, or, recently, from real estate-related activities. Overall, traditional, higher-paying, blue-collar jobs – such as construction and durable goods manufacturing – have continued to lose ground. Most California metropolitan areas, most notably Los Angeles, lag most key national competitors — including Texas metro areas, Phoenix, Nashville, Tenn., Charlotte, N.C., and Orlando, Fla. — in higher-paid new jobs in business services and finance.

But the biggest losers of egalitarian aspirations have been the constituencies most loudly embraced by the state’s progressive establishment: black and brown Californians. Nowhere is this disparity greater than in home ownership, the signature measure of upward mobility and entrance into the middle class. Overall, Latino homeownership in California is 41.9 percent; nationally, it’s 45 percent, and in Texas it’s 55 percent. Similarly, among African Americans, homeownership is down to 34 percent in California, compared to 41 percent nationally and 40.8 percent in Texas. In Los Angeles, which has the lowest overall homeownership percentage among the nation’s largest metro areas, only 37 percent of Hispanics own their own homes, compared to 50 percent in Dallas-Fort Worth.

CALIFORNIA’S ROAD FORWARD--One popular progressive theory for how to address the economy lies in trying to emulate places like Massachusetts, a state whose per-capita income ranks among the highest in the country. Yet, this approach fails to confront the huge demographic differences between the states.

Let’s start with ethnicity. Eighty percent of Massachusetts’ population is comprised of non-Hispanic whites or Asians, who traditionally have higher incomes, while in California whites and Asians constitute only 52 percent. Some 80 percent of the Boston metropolitan area is non-Hispanic white or Asian, compared to only 46 percent the population in the Los Angeles-Orange County area, and 40 percent in the Inland Empire. California has a poverty rate, adjusted for housing costs, of 23.4 percent, while Massachusetts, with its lower share of more heavily disadvantaged minority populations, registers just 13.8 percent.

California could only resemble Massachusetts if it successfully unloaded much of its disadvantaged minority and working-class population. Although some might celebrate the movement of poorer people out of the state, our poverty rate is unlikely to decrease, since historically disadvantaged ethnicities (African Americans and Hispanics) account for 58 percent of the under-18 population in California, and only 25 percent in Massachusetts.

Simply put, California faces a gargantuan challenge of generating a better standard of living for a huge proportion of its population. To be sure, both the San Francisco and San Jose metropolitan areas can thrive, like Massachusetts, in a highly education-driven economy. But states like California, Texas and Florida are too diverse, in class and race, to follow the “Massachusetts model.” We need good blue-collar and white-collar, middle-income jobs to keep a more diverse, and somewhat less well-educated, population adequately housed and fed.

This should be the primary concern of our state. But the governor and legislators seem more interested today in re-engineering our way of life than improving outcomes. True, if you drive up housing and energy prices, some of the poor will leave, but so, too, will young people, the future middle class. Though our largest coastal metropolitan counties — Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and San Francisco — have long been younger than the rest of country, soon they will be more gray than the nation.

The demographic future of California seems increasingly at odds with the broad “dream” that Starr and others evoke so powerfully. We are headed ever more toward a state of divided realities, of poorer, downwardly mobile people, largely in the interior and in inner-city Los Angeles or Oakland, and a rapidly aging, wealthier, whiter enclave hugging the coast. For those with the right education, inheritance and a large enough salary, the California dream still shines bright, but for the majority it seems like a dying light.

(Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com. Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international pubilc policy and demographics firm. This piece was was posted first by the LA Daily News and most recently by New Geography.)

-cw

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW--As “religious freedom” (or a pass to discriminate under the guise of religious convictions) continues to be a hot-button issue on the national stage, Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) is eliminating provisions from a California senate bill that would have made it more challenging for faith-based institutions to receive Title IX exemptions. 

“The goal for me has always been to shed the light on the appalling and unacceptable discrimination against LGBT students at these private religious institutions throughout California,” Lara told the Los Angeles Times. 

The bill as drafted faced strong opposition from religious colleges and some schools joined to create the Association of Faith Based Institutions and the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities to lobby against its passage. MassResistance and other protest groups also encouraged people to petition their local assembly members. 

Religious institutions had objected to the initial bill because many believed the provisions would leave them vulnerable to lawsuits and would infringe upon their right to follow their religious values. Lara has amended the bill to remove restrictions, which would allow colleges to maintain their faith-based standards. The institutions would be required to notify the public of their exemption status and provide information about disciplinary actions based on their sexual orientation. 

The bill as originally drafted would have placed obstacles on schools that include sexual orientation in decisions about admission, accommodation, or housing. Colleges would need to advertise their Title IX exempt status. When religious institutions claimed the bill would force them to act against their standards of conduct and would also leave them open to lawsuits, Lara revisited the bill. 

The amended bill, which now has support of many California colleges, has been approved in the state Senate and will be heard by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Thursday. 

Accommodating institutions and businesses that would practice religious-sanctioned discrimination, typically against LGBT and women, is a slippery slope. As the American Civil Liberties Union position states, “While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same; religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.” 

During the sixties, institutions opposed integration laws, stating their religious beliefs promoted separation of races. Colleges and universities affiliated with religious institutions would refuse to admit students in interracial relationships. 

Freedom of religion means protecting one’s right to practice religion without providing the right to discriminate against and impose beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs. While this bill does place some limits on religious colleges, it allows discriminatory practices under the guise of religion. Balancing the rights of institutions to operate under their religious moral code with protecting others from discriminatory practices is a slippery slope.

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

-cw

PERSPECTIVE--State Senator Bob Hertzberg is a smart man; smart enough to know the power of language. According to his bio, as an undergraduate English major, he wrote a 400-page handbook titled A Commonsense Approach to English.

To paraphrase a quote attributed to the late US Senator Everett Dirksen: A deft turn of a definition here, and a subtle re-characterization there, the next thing you know, we are dealing with some serious money!

And that has been Hertzberg’s game plan since he returned to the legislature in December 2014.

He introduced SB 8, a bill cloaked by a seemingly harmless name – the Upward Mobility Act. The senator described it as a tool to “modernize” the state’s tax structure. He admitted it would be designed to yield another $10B in tax revenue.   

The bill died, but that did not stop Bob from reintroducing a replacement: SB 1445.  

As SB 8 proposed, this new bill would extend the application of sales tax to services, a direct hit to all segments of society – the middle class, most notably. As he did with SB 8, he is characterizing it as “modernization.”

The only thing being modernized is the state’s access to our wallets.

But the “serial hugger” is not stopping there.  He again whipped out his English to Taxation dictionary to conjure up SB 1298.

His objective is to do an end run around Prop 218’s requirement for voter approval of tax increases by redefining “sewer service” to include storm water projects. Perhaps “serial wordsmith” would serve as a better moniker for him. Please read the excellent editorial concerning 1298 in the Daily News. 

The bill has a worthwhile objective.  It is designed to encourage recovery of storm water. No one is arguing with the benefits it offers to our drought-stricken state.

But it is dangerous to override the benefits of government transparency and the legislative process.

Californians are being asked to pony up more cash to fund a growing list of expensive projects.  In Los Angeles alone, we are being asked to pass a permanent increase in the sales tax for the MTA. The city and county are considering spending over a billion dollars to provide housing to the homeless.  There is also the trainwreck of HSR absorbing funds that could be used to enhance the state’s water capacity.

Our state and local governments have no grasp of prioritization.  Capital budgeting is completely absent in the minds of Hertzberg, his colleagues in Sacramento and counterparts at the local level.

Taxpayers have a right to weigh in on what needs attention and the means of paying.  To do so requires presenting the big picture of competing needs. Let the people decide what is most important and authorize appropriate funding levels.

We do not have unlimited funds; we can only afford what can be sustained without breaking the bank.

Sneaking around the voters and playing word games, as Hertzberg has been doing, is disrespectful to all of us.

(Paul Hatfield is a CPA and serves as President of the Valley Village Homeowners Association. He blogs at Village to Village and contributes to CityWatch. The views presented are those of Mr. Hatfield and his alone and do not represent the opinions of Valley Village Homeowners Association or CityWatch. He can be reached at: [email protected].)

-cw

MAKE A REPORT--There is no room for illegal and unethical behavior in politics – especially local politics. Yet, it looks like there is a continuing trend of campaign property being stolen over in LA County in the race for 4^th District Supervisor. This is a much watched contest that could change the direction of the LA County Board of Supervisors for years to come.  The race is between Steve Napolitano and Janice Hahn. 

We’re asking for your help identifying the person seen here in this video.

If you recognize this person or have information regarding this theft, send an email to [email protected].  

Napolitano staff and volunteers noticed that a large number of Napolitano for Supervisor campaign yard signs went missing after their opponent’s signs went up during the primary.  

This disturbing trend of thefts and vandalism appears to be continuing now into the general election. 

This past week, the staff and volunteers saw another big spike in the number of missing campaign signs, especially in the San Pedro area.  

But we now have a video that shows someone in the act of stealing a Napolitano campaign sign. 

I am hoping CityWatch readers will take a close look and let me know who this is.   DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS PERSON? Send an email to [email protected].  

Please help identify whoever is in this video.  This is a very important election and taking down campaign signs shouldn’t be a part of it.

(This video and this story were provided by a San Pedro resident who has asked to remain anonymous.)

-cw