THE GUSS REPORT-(Editor’s Note: This Daniel Guss piece was posted on CityWatch on August 9. We offer this in-case-you-missed-it ‘replay’ because David Zahniser’s excellent column in Thursday’s LA Times flushed the financial struggles of City Council president Herb Wesson the top the LA politics conversation again. It’s worth a second read.) Herb Wesson is one of the most influential and talented local lawmakers in the United States. As President of the Los Angeles City Council, former Speaker of the California Assembly, and recipient of a consistent and generous government paycheck and perks since 1982, the irony of his potentially losing the homes he and his wife Fabian own is immense. Yet that is the dangerous dance they have narrowly sidestepped as far back as 2002 and as recently as a few weeks ago.  

Their former residence in Ladera Heights, which sits on an earthquake fault line, was first in default 14 years ago this month. But as recently as a few weeks ago, the Wessons were notified that the million dollar house would be sold at auction for just $382,229.50 in July if their obligations were not immediately satisfied. They have received similarly ominous warnings virtually every year since 2011. 

That house, according to the Council President’s filings, provides the Wessons between $10,000 and $100,000 in rental income per year by leasing it to a Pasadena-based business that uses it as a for-profit assisted living facility. (That company was cited this summer by the Department of Social Services for having broken appliances, indoor furniture and exposed trash in the yard, and poor maintenance of patient records.) 

Wesson’s office did not respond to a request for an interview regarding why that revenue was not used to satisfy the latest mortgage default, what conditions presently exist in the house, what is its current ownership status and the condition of its residents. 

Things are more worrisome for the city’s leading lawmaker when it comes to the home in which he and his wife reside. Earlier in 2016, they were in default by $33,248.24, an amount similar to earlier default notices and more than double those from earlier years at the other property.

One mortgage executive, who estimates that that figure represents roughly eight months of missed payments, says that it makes no sense that the properties have not yet been seized and sold. “With their hefty income, significant equity and one property being a revenue-generating, non-owner occupied home, no lender would knowingly say that is a hardship worthy of a refi[nance]. I would want to see their loan docs [to determine among other things] whether they have represented to their lenders that they are the occupants of the home they’re leasing out … A refi in that type of situation would be a big no-no.” The executive also points out that the Wessons may have cured their defaults with money from a source other than a refi. 

According to Wesson’s Ethics Commission filings, their combined household income in recent years ranges between $200,000 and $500,000 per year. They enjoy the city’s Cadillac-level health insurance plan and free automobiles that the taxpayers also fuel, maintain and insure at no cost to them, leading to the question: how is it they are able to hold foreclosure at-bay? 

Perhaps it is because some of the defaults are in Wesson’s legal first name, Herman; others are in his more familiar name, Herb, with and without his Junior suffix; and others are in his wife’s name. It should be noted that one of his sons is similarly named Herb Wesson III who, like one of his brothers, is also employed in a City Council staff position. 

Complicating matters even more, Wesson has not recused himself from voting on City Council agenda items that relate to the rotation of lenders who hold and hand-off their defaulting mortgages like a hot potato. Wesson’s office, in response to multiple public records requests, says no records exist regarding those votes. 

While some of the Wesson’s problems stem from a massive federal tax lien, as well as a state tax lien, their mortgage woes predate those liens by at least six years. 

At an event last year, Wesson told a sidebar of constituents concerned about their personal and community’s economic woes that their “suffering is God’s way of testing your faith.” But by that measure, Wesson’s own faith is being mightily tested, as well. The question is, since Wesson has the ability, authority and talent to do something about their situations and his own, why hasn’t he? 

While this may explain a bit why Sacramento and the City of Los Angeles are in a perpetual fiscal morass, it might be time for Wesson to offer a confession of his own … or at least an explanation.

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a contributor to CityWatchLA, KFI AM-640, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Daily News, Los Angeles Business Journal, Los Angeles Magazine and others. He blogs on humane issues at http://ericgarcetti.blogspot.com/. Daniel Guss opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

MY TURN-This political year has been like an addiction … a very bad drug for those of us who are political junkies. You don't want to watch the events on TV, but you don't want to miss anything either. And as if it wasn't bad enough to be counting down the days to November 8 … we now have a local election issue that won't be resolved until next March. 

I’m sure most of you have heard that Felipe Fuentes, Councilmember for District 7, is leaving his post in September. Social media and the mainstream press have covered his resignation extensively. He has accepted a position with the legislative advocate The Apex Group in Sacramento. 

He assured everyone that he did not entertain new job opportunities until after he announced his intention not to seek re-election back in January of this year. His current term of office doesn’t expire until June 30, 2017. 

District 7, which extends from east of the 405 to the border with Glendale, sometimes reminds me of poor Job in the Old Testament. They have fires, homeless encampments, poor roads, speeding problems with constant accident fatalities, increased crime, floods (unless we have a drought), NYMBYism, and in some areas, the need for economic and job development. 

District 7 is a microcosm of Los Angeles. The stakeholders there represent all economic levels, and cover the entire political spectrum -- which can make for interesting discussions. Beautiful rural areas, including animal preserves and hiking trails in the San Gabriel Mountains, are mixed in with industrial parks and car repair blight. Developers want to increase the density. High Speed Rail threatens to split some communities in half. Residents there are multi ethnic, multilingual and care deeply about their neighborhoods. 

I became familiar with Felipe Fuentes last year when he evicted the Sunland Tujunga Neighborhood Council and a police substation from the designated City Hall in this part of the Northern San Fernando Valley. Ostensibly, his reason was to give the space to a couple of non-profits that were working on homeless projects. 

I covered that rather ugly event in a CityWatch article in October. I had tried to get some explanation from either him or his offices to no avail. Apparently, his typical response was no response. This is something his constituents faced most of the time. I again questioned his motives in a CityWatch piece in January called "Felipe Fuentes: The Long Farewell." It seemed strange that he would cloak himself in the "lame duck" attire eighteen months ahead of time. 

Of course he and his fellow Councilmember Nury Martinez had been questioned as to why, on City time, their respective staffs helped with Raul Bocanegra's recount for the 39th Assembly district when he was defeated by Patty Lopez. There has been no further news on that lately.   

Scouring the internet, I couldn’t find a single post from anyone who is sorry to see him leave. This is pretty remarkable since he did manage to raise a lot of money for his council campaign in 2012. His biggest donors were building trades associations. Coincidently, his new position with The Apex Group will be with their construction and building trade sectors. 

I asked Darren Martinez in the City Attorney's office if there is any rule against an elected official becoming a lobbyist immediately after leaving office or it there is a waiting period, which is standard in Federal and State ethics rules. As of now, I’ve had no response from the City Attorney. I guess they are too busy defending the City against lawsuits. Someone knowledgeable in LA ethics law told me that the City has the same ethics rule but since he is going to work for a lobbying group outside of Los Angeles, it doesn't apply. 

He should have resigned in January which could have allowed a new councilmember for District 7 to be elected. Doing it now is like making a farewell obscene gesture to his constituents: He’s leaving them without a representative for another year. Council President Herb Wesson will appoint a "caretaker" from the Legislative Analyst’s department. 

Some of Fuentes constituents told me that they will be better off with him gone because he wasn't doing anything for them anyway. While this may be true, he did, after all, make a commitment to serve for four years. It seems that he managed to do the minimum amount of work just to set himself up to take a much higher paying position when leaving office. 

He managed to spearhead the new Charter amendment on the November ballot which restructures the DWP. But what did he accomplish for his constituents? Aside from telling some of the NCs in his district that he didn't need them and helping with some cleanup and playing favorites...not much. 

The LA Times grudgingly endorsed him in 2012 with the caveat that he could do a great job or a poor one. Yesterday they concluded it was poor. 

Now, at least 21 people have filed papers for the vacancy. It looks like representatives from the entrenched SVF political machine will try to use their considerable influence and power. There are also political staff members from other Council offices who are getting a head start on fundraising. Don't forget…this primary election isn't until March 2017. There are quite a few civic activists and some ordinary citizens also looking at this job. 

I urge the stakeholders in District 7 to vet all these candidates carefully. You are at a crossroads and you need someone who will commit to doing his or her best 24/7. Hold their feet to the fire! Make them give you more than a glimpse of their visions and how they plan to achieve their goals. The term of office will be five plus years, so make them promise publicly that they will fulfill the whole term of office. 

Felipe Fuentes will serve as a great example of what you don't want in your next councilmember! 

As always ... comments welcome.

(Denyse Selesnick is a CityWatch columnist. She is a former publisher/journalist/international event organizer. Denyse can be reached at: [email protected]) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.)

DEVELOPERS’ DREAMS-After a six-hour, emotional hearing at LA City Hall on Thursday, the City Planning Commission approved the billion-dollar mega-project known as “The Reef” for Historic South-Central, even though scores of local residents testified that the high-end residential development would force them out of their neighborhood and create widespread displacement. 

“This is modern ethnic cleansing,” a young man told the planning commissioners at the packed meeting. 

Neighborhood activists and working-class residents have long been wary about The Reef, also known as SoLA Village. 

The 1.6 million-square-foot mega-project, pushed by developer Kanon Ventures, is located near the Santa Monica Freeway at 1933 S. Broadway features a 19-story hotel and two luxury housing skyscrapers (32 stories and 35 stories each) with more than 1,000 units. Abandoning its Historic South-Central heritage, Kanon Ventures markets The Reef as a “creative habitat in downtown LA,” an obvious attempt to grab the attention of artists, hipsters and techies. 

In a 2014 Los Angeles Times article, LA City Council member Curren Price, who represents Historic South-Central in District 9, also made clear that the mega-project was part of an expansion of downtown LA, which has been rapidly gentrifying. “This is a wonderful opportunity to show what the future of downtown is going to be as it migrates southward,” he told the newspaper.  

Perhaps most tellingly, Kanon Ventures offered no affordable housing at The Reef, but agreed to contribute $15 million to the Council District 9 Affordable Housing Trust Fund to “facilitate development of affordable housing within CD 9 and towards the purchase of expiring restricted affordable housing covenants,” according to a city document. 

Each council member maintains a number of trust funds that are essentially slush funds, with money often going to the politician’s favorite pet projects and organizations. The slush funds are difficult to track and receive little public oversight. 

Kanon Ventures and its executives have long been deep-pocketed players at City Hall. Between 2001 and 2015, the developer shelled out $12,450 to the campaign war chests of LA politicians, according to the city’s Ethics Commission. 

In pursuit of building The Reef, the developer poured $357,325 into super-connected lobbying firm Marathon Communications to win over LA pols and city agencies, according to the Ethics Commission. For The Reef, Kanon Ventures operates through a limited liability corporation known as PHR LA Mart. 

That’s a whopping total of $369,775 — more than 10 times the median household income in Historic South-Central. 

During Thursday’s meeting, many city planning commissioners, who are appointed by Mayor Eric Garcetti, revealed that they had previously talked with the Mayor’s Office about The Reef -- a sign that in addition to Councilman Price, Garcetti was deeply involved with the mega-project. 

At the City Hall hearing, where more than 140 people testified, local residents brought up a number of serious concerns with planning commissioners David Ambroz, Renee Dake Wilson, Veronica Padilla, Caroline Choe, Samantha Millman, John Mack, Robert Ahn and Dana Perlman, including: 

• Local residents can’t afford the market-rate housing at The Reef. 

• The residential towers are next to the 10 Freeway, the kind of freeway-adjacent housing that USC and UCLA scientific studies show is dangerous to the health of children, seniors and pregnant women. 

• Apartment rents around the The Reef will rise and force people out of their homes and cause displacement. 

• Numerous large billboards at the site will overwhelm the neighborhood. 

• The developer and City Council member did not properly reach out to the community. 

The planning commission, however, decided against super-graphic and digital billboards at The Reef, and proposed that the developer offer some affordable housing -- a paltry 50 rental units for low- and moderate-income tenants. The commissioners did approve spot-zoning favors such as a General Plan amendment and zone change. 

Community activist Damien Goodmon of Crenshaw Subway Coalition, who opposed The Reef, said about the City Hall-approved favors that push forward over-sized, luxury development in LA, “Spot zoning for mega-projects is facilitating gentrification. People who live in these neighborhoods are longtime residents, and they will be pushed out. Who are these projects for?” 

It was a question that the planning commissioners never asked developer Kanon Ventures.

(Patrick Range McDonald writes for the Coalition to Preserve LA where this piece was first posted.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

MIDDLE EAST POLITICS-The California State legislature is about to adopt a bill heavily promoted by Santa Monica’s Assemblymember Richard Bloom to penalize criticism of Israel. Based on the false allegation that criticisms of the Israeli government are anti-Semitic (i.e. anti-Jewish), Bloom’s bill would forbid State of California contracts to private companies that subscribe to any tenets of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

Bloom’s opponents have pointed out these criticisms, such as Israel’s construction of apartheid in occupied territories, are commonplace among Israeli Jews. They also point out that many American Jews criticize the Israeli government’s racist practices and support various consumer boycotts. 

What Bloom is promoting in Sacramento mirrors similar actions in many other states and in Washington DC. In fact, U.S. government policy toward Israel will swerve further to the right on January 20, 2017, when either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is inaugurated President of the United States. Massive military aid and unquestioning diplomatic support of Israel will continue, and relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will become more cordial as Israeli and American policies become more closely aligned. 

Israel’s Likud political party and its American proxy, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), will still be in the driver’s seat. As the greater Middle East further unravels, Israel and its U.S. advocates will argue that Israel deserves still more U.S. government support because it is a rock solid, stable U.S. ally in a region filled with shaky authoritarian regimes. 

But, for the reasons we outline below, either presidential administration will eventually discover that its pro-Likud position – similar to Richard Bloom’s -- is extremely counterproductive. President Clinton or President Trump will reap few benefits and many setbacks by doubling down on U.S. government support for the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, including the construction of an apartheid state in these areas. This is because the U.S. government has little to gain and much to lose from this continued approach. 

As of 2016-17, AIPAC can still sway U.S. policy toward Israel, including in the California legislature, but AIPAC, like its Israeli puppet master, is a 97-pound weakling when it comes to stopping many long-term trends in the Middle East at odds with perceived U.S. and Israeli government interests. This is, in part, because Israel’s enormous military power, much of built through U.S. aid, has become irrelevant to U.S. concerns in the greater Middle East. For example:

• In Syria, Israel cannot directly attack the Assad regime or its enemies from the Islamic State (IS). Its participation would only sharpen the conflict and expose rifts within Israel and between Israel and the United States. This is because Israel discreetly supports jihadists in Syria to cement its backdoor alliance with Saudi Arabia, while the U.S., in contrast, is bombing these same jihadists. 

• In Iraq, Israel cannot attack the IS for the same reasons. If it were to do so, it would jeopardize its hush-hush relationship with the Gulf monarchies and find itself in an awkward alliance with Iran, whose goal is to attack IS in order to prop up the pro-Iranian Shiite regime of Iraq. 

• In the Sinai Peninsula, a hotbed of IS activity on Israel’s southern flank, the situation is no different. Even though IS is a sworn enemy of the U.S., Israel, and Egypt, another Israeli invasion of the Sinai Peninsula would undermine, not strengthen, Egypt’s pro-U.S. autocrat, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. An Israeli attack in Sinai could also draw in Hamas from the adjacent Gaza strip, resulting in a level of Israeli casualties that would again undermine the Netanyahu government. 

• In Lebanon, another enemy of the U.S. and Israel, Hezbollah, has 50,000 missiles aimed at Israel. Even though Hezbollah has moved the bulk of its forces into neighboring Syria to fight jihadists and U.S.-supported secular forces attacking the Assad regime, it could still fire its missiles at Israel. While Israel has the military power to again attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, it does not have the military technology to block all Hezbollah rockets fired at Israel, or the political strength to absorb the many dozens of Israelis who would be killed in combat or by rockets destroying civilian targets. 

• Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia are other Middle East hotspots where U.S. interests are militarily challenged and where Israel has the military power to intercede, but could not tolerate the blowback. Israeli intervention in those conflicts would inflame local jihadists and increase the flow of refugees northward, some of who would breach border fences to join other “infiltrators” already living in Israel. Furthermore, any casualties from these military adventures would jeopardize Netanyahu’s Knesset alliance. 

If it were not initially clear, either Presidential administration would slowly realize that U.S. military aid and diplomatic support for Israel was restricted to the following: 

• Quell Palestinian opposition to the construction of an apartheid state in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, including potential future Palestinian expulsions under the cover of a regional war. 

• “Mow the lawn” in Gaza to periodically hobble a Palestinian force that could, at some distant point, challenge an apartheid state by going off their reservation/open-air prison. 

• Attack Iran using F-35 stealth and other first-strike weapons the U.S. is supplying Israel. While such a neo-con inspired attack would unleash a tsunami of counterattacks against the U.S. and its regional protectorates, including Israel, such unintended consequences are of little concern to neo-cons, whether they reside in Washington, Riyadh, or Jerusalem.     

Future U.S. Government Role in the Israel-Palestinian Conflict 

With so many local conflicts weakening the overall U.S. military position in the Middle East, and with Israel of no help in these conflicts, we have a vantage point to foresee the future U.S. role in this critical geo-political region. Although we can expect more rounds of neo-con inspired military interventions throughout the Middle East, such as confrontations with Iran, they will not improve the situation of U.S., only drain the country’s economic and political resources further. It has already happened in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, where there is no light at the end of these tunnels. Furthermore, the one-sided U.S. alliance with Israel can only jeopardize its declining position throughout the greater Middle East. 

This is one of reasons we can predict how, but not when, the Israeli government experiment to construct an apartheid state will eventually collapse. At some point the United States government either cannot or will not shield Israel from further international pressure, including sanctions, as well as local mass movements. This loss of critical external support from the U.S. will usher in swift changes, for either the better or worse. 

That moment is now on the horizon due to three other political trends that are converging with declining U.S. military and political influence in the Middle East.

Foreign protection: The first trend is Israel’s increasing need for direct military support and diplomatic protection, especially at international forums, like the United Nations Security Council. 

Israel’s transformation of its 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem into a full-on apartheid state requires greater, not less, shoring up from the United States to deflect growing domestic and international opposition. Despite one public relations offensive after another, Israel is increasingly isolated. It has now reached the point where the country has becoming a pariah state in many parts of the world.

Israel’s frantic pushback against this growing resistance now appears on a daily basis, such as ever more draconian undemocratic laws aimed at weakening Israeli, Palestinian, and foreign anti-occupation movements, even non-violent middle class ones, like Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS). 

American Jewish Disenchantment with Israel: The second trend is the weakening of the organized American Jewish community’s dedication to Israel. As a younger generation of Jewish American leaders comes to power, unlike Assemblymember Bloom, they are repulsed by Israel’s never-ending occupation, religious fanaticism, extreme nationalism, overt racism, repressive political climate, and alliance with the U.S. Republican Party. Furthermore, unlike Bloom, they do not easily confuse opposition to Israeli racism with opposition to Jews as Jews. 

As the Jewish American community gets further removed from its immigrant roots, which directly witnessed the fate of powerless Jews during the Holocaust, and it becomes more integrated into the American intellectual, political, and financial elite, the more Jews question the need for a refuge in one of the most dangerous corners of the world. 

In fact, Jewish elites have become well integrated into this American academic, economic, and political circles. In this process, anti-Semitism has effectively disappeared, and the need for a hasty mass exodus from the United States to Israel strikes most of them as ludicrous. 

Weakening Israel Lobby: The stranglehold that the Israeli lobby has had on the U.S. government is weakening. Congress and all Presidential administrations since the 1960s complied with nearly all of Israel’s requests. But the cumulative efforts of the Israel government and the Israel lobby could not stop the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, finalized in 2015 and already mostly implemented. Recently, the Bernie Sanders Presidential campaign brought the plight of Palestinians and Israel’s 50-year occupation into the national spotlight for the first time. 

These three political trends together mean that Israel’s need for protection from accountability and opposition, such as BDS, will eventually exceed the United States’ capacity or commitment. 

Like the nationalist government in South Africa, Israel will then have to adjust to a new reality, and that will usher in dramatic political changes. There are more and less desirable possibilities. The most likely non-violent path is that moribund Israeli peace forces regain strength and, together with Palestinian movements, find a way to end the occupation and establish a viable, sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel.

The other options almost surely will involve violence. On one side, the formation of a South African-style, single democratic state with equal rights for all or a bi-national state could trigger a Jewish civil war. On the other side, if an American exit nevertheless leads to a full apartheid state and/or a massive expulsion of Palestinians, it will further isolate Israel, confront it with a massive Intifada, and finally trigger a regional war that could involve nuclear weapons.

A non-violent response to the fallout from an eventual U.S. departure must be the international goal.

(Victor Rothman is a California-based political analyst. Jeff Warner is the Action Coordinator of LA Jews for Peace. Please send any comments to i[email protected].  Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

GELFAND’S WORLD--When Donald Trump argued that the only way he could lose Pennsylvania was by being cheated out of it, he was essentially conceding defeat in the presidential election. Competitive candidates try to turn the tide. Losers make excuses. It's not even a good excuse. We are barely into the middle of August, and Trump is already explaining away his eventual loss. 

Trump has been building the excuse for the past couple of weeks. Think of all the whiney statements he has been making about the election being rigged. This is a substantial reversal from when he bragged incessantly about how well he was going to do (remember even 3 months ago?). 

Usually, the candidate who goes into the middle of August down by 7 points is introduced at his rallies as "the next president of the United States." Leaders in the polls and second placers alike are supposed to keep up a brave front, particularly because there are occasional turnarounds. But Trump doesn't seem to understand either history or how to play the game. 

When it looks like you're about to lose in historic proportions, likely giving up Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida -- a solid bloc of once-confederate states -- it must really smart. Over the past 16 presidential elections (starting with 1952) Florida voted for the Republican 11 times, taking time off to vote against Goldwater and to vote for Bill Clinton's reelection before the modern realignment as a swing state. Virginia has a similar history. and North Carolina has voted for the Republican candidate 10 times out of the past 12 elections. 

The post-convention polling must have been devastating to The Donald. He gave a flamboyant speech at the RNC that has been compared to some of Mussolini's best efforts, and he even got to celebrate a short bounce in the polls. But two weeks later, his lead in the polls evaporated, and suddenly Hillary Clinton is leading by historic percentages. 

It must be frustrating beyond belief to Trump that his message is not only being ignored, it is being laughed at. 

The part that I find interesting is that Trump has become boring. Like really, really boring. 

Trump made his mark by taking a series of outrageous positions. He started his campaign by challenging the president's birthplace. It was a shameful display of racism, but it got him recognized. He continued with his attacks on immigrants, Moslems, and all of his primary opponents. His approach was fairly unique in our modern presidential history. Most candidates try to create at least an image of adulthood, but Trump turned it all over by throwing infantile tantrums. 

The more outrageous he got, the more attention he drew. But neither Trump nor the media seemed to sense that eventually this approach would get old. 

Perhaps it's the fact that Trump is using his patented approach of calling names (crooked Hillary) but didn't see that when the victim is not on stage with him, the name calling falls flat. 

Perhaps it's the fact that in the post-convention period, the press finally has time to practice the craft of the high school essay: compare and contrast. They have a lot of material and the comparison has become easy. 

But did we predict that the press and most voters would suddenly get bored with Trump? If the rest of the reporters haven't yet caught on, allow me to state the obvious fact. 

A few days ago, an increasingly desperate Trump accused the president of founding Isis. You know, Isis, the terrorist organization that took over a large part of Iraq? It's interesting to look at the media's reactions. Yes, there were the obligatory attempts to ask if Trump meant something else, and there were the now reflexive attempts by his staff and supporters to make his statement into something else. In response to the question -- "Did you mean that?" -- Trump said Yes, then he said No (it was sarcasm) and then he went back to a qualified Yes. 

The press and the public just yawned. 

It wasn't new and entertaining anymore. Everyone was wondering what Trump would come up with next. The reaction was, in essence, Is that all you've got? 

At this point, Trump has become predictable. Oh so predictable. We've come to understand that he will make up just about anything. We're not sure whether it's carefully crafted deception by a master of the craft, or whether it's done on the fly. But the notable point is that the press and the public don't buy into the game anymore. We're not paying much attention because it's been sooooo overdone. 

"Hey, did you hear what Trump did today?" 

"No (stifling yawning noises). "What did he do this time? 

While Trump was in the ascendancy during the primaries, he was considered to be an object of fascination by political scientists and reporters alike. It was a truly unexpected win streak. But now that his numbers are falling and Hillary Clinton has been pronounced 89% likely to win the presidency, he is just one more loser. Reporters and editors are a lot less likely to get all worked up about the desperate gyrations of the guy coming in second.

●●

Short Takes -Is it the end of a sporting era? Women's Soccer became an Olympic sport in 1996. The U.S. women's team finished second in 2000, and took the gold every other time. That's four golds out of five Olympics. This year's team came into the Olympics as Women's World Cup champions. And then the floor collapsed under them. It's true that they won their opening two games in the group round, but showed worrisome instability in the final group game against Colombia. The two-time loser Colombia managed to tie the game in what was literally the last second. Then the U.S. went to the knockout round and lost in the quarterfinals to Sweden. Sweden is good, but the U.S. is supposed to defeat them when it counts. 

After the game, the American goalie Hope Solo created a small international incident when she referred to the Swedish strategy as cowardly, referring to the Swede's tactics of playing defense well. Nobody took it too seriously, but one wonders whether Solo is on the downswing of a once spectacular career. 

It was certainly the end of the Michael Phelps era in swimming, unless it isn't. He says he's retiring (skipping out with a mere 23 gold medals?). 

The U.S. men's rugby team beat Brazil and Spain in the Olympics, while suffering close losses to Argentina and to eventual Olympic champion Fiji (by a score of 24-19). Think of rugby scores as fairly analogous to scores in American football. In the championship game, Fiji beat Great Britain by 43-7. With its 9th place finish, the U.S. team showed that it can play world-class rugby, but not necessarily championship level rugby. 

Save the Olympics-- Kevin Drum has been floating a pretty good idea for saving the Olympics. Why do they need saving? Because most modern Olympic games have been budget busters for the host countries. Greece and Brazil are particularly good examples of the bad effects of hosting the games. 

Some people have suggested that there be a permanent site for the games in Greece, the country of their origin. Drum took the idea and changed Greece to Los Angeles. It makes sense in a way, because Los Angeles has hosted the games twice and avoided bankruptcy. Most of the facilities are in place. I suspect that the one negative would be air quality, but we've survived it before. Drum points out that he didn't get a lot of support for making Los Angeles the permanent home (I think it's still a reasonable idea) and now suggests that the games could be spread among several countries in each Olympics. 

May I suggest that Drum combine the two suggestions to include Los Angeles as the main host with negotiated subordinate hosts for various sports. How about Chicago or Boston for basketball, England for rugby, and India for cricket? 

NCEPA--The neighborhood council emergency preparedness alliance (NCEPA): The group has been meeting and has developed a committee structure to recommend communications methodology (this refers to the use of radios in emergency situations rather than putting out a newsletter), outreach, and an overall plan. We will keep everyone in the loop using City Watch. 

What's with Scott Adams?--Adams is the creator of the Dilbert cartoons, author of lots of books, and self-proclaimed expert on what motivates people. He also writes a blog.  At the start of the presidential campaign season, he talked about Trump as the master persuader. In recent months, he predicted that Trump would win the presidency in a landslide. His argument seems to come down to the assertion that people make decisions based less on reason, and more on emotion. OK so far, but it is a bit presumptuous to think that the majority of voters share the same emotions as Trump voters. 

More recently, he stated that he was endorsing Hillary Clinton, but not because he supports either candidate; rather, he says he is making the endorsement because in Northern California, where he lives, it would be personally dangerous to do otherwise. Ignoring the huge insult to the people in his region, this is also one of the stupidest arguments I've heard in a long time. Perhaps this is Adams' attempt to make himself into a real-life version of a Dilbert cartoon, or perhaps his lampoon of Trump himself. 

Whatever the reality, people seem to be noticing the Adams touch and becoming irritated. Recently, Adams is hedging his bets by arguing that Hillary has learned to use Trump's own measures against him.

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

BILLBOARD WATCH-Earlier this summer, the bus shelter pictured above displayed an ad for the movie, “Central Intelligence,” which depicted two men brandishing and blasting away with guns. But after complaints were raised about the bus shelter’s proximity to nearby schools, the ad was changed to a public service message featuring Smokey the Bear. 

It’s probable that the city’s street furniture contractor, a joint venture of billboard giants Outfront Media and JC Decaux, gets considerably more revenue from movie ads than public service messages. That may explain the very temporary hiatus between the offending “Central Intelligence” ad and the gun-displaying ad for the movie, “Suicide Squad” in the bus shelter less than 300 ft. from the grounds of an elementary school and charter high school. 

In fact, despite an ongoing debate about gun violence in the U.S., it’s business as usual for billboard companies and the marketing departments of companies like Warner Bros., which produced Suicide Squad.  Bus shelters, billboards and other forms of outdoor advertising display often-menacing figures armed to the teeth with pistols, assault rifles, and even more extreme forms of weaponry. These displays of violence, both explicit and implied, can be found near schools, libraries, playgrounds, and other places children and young people congregate. 

Violence, and especially, gun violence, obviously sells tickets, or so media companies like Warner Bros. and Universal apparently believe. However, not everyone in the entertainment business agrees that such ad campaigns are appropriate. Lena Dunham, creator and star of the popular HBO series, “Girls”, recently objected to ads for the movie, “Jason Bourne,” calling on people to alter the ads in New York City subways. And closer to home, Venice neighbors and their children recently altered a construction fence plastered with “Jason Bourne” ads by covering the gun images with flowers. 

(Dennis Hathaway is the president of the Ban Billboard Blight Coalition and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.