PLATKIN ON PLANNING-We have all heard the expression “getting blood from a stone.” That is the conundrum facing City Hall’s efforts to solve LA’s housing crisis through private investment. It isn’t really working, and the City’s half-hearted efforts have been further complicated by two upcoming ballot initiatives. The Building Better LA initiative, on the November 2016 ballot, would require affordable housing built through municipal programs to utilize unionized labor. 

Then, in March 2017, LA voters will weigh in on a second, more comprehensive initiative, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. If approved, this ordinance would impose a two year ban on City Council legislative actions that spot-zoned and/or spot-planned high-rise luxury housing projects. During this hiatus, the City would be required to begin the update of LA’s legally required but outdated General Plan, eventually including the city’s 35 Community Plans. 

While these updates would identify locations that had the greatest need and potential for affordable housing construction, the Initiative also permits the construction of 100 percent affordable housing projects through City Council zone changes and/or General Plan Amendments. 

In response to these two initiatives and an undeniable crisis in LA’s supply of affordable housing, the City Council directed the Department of City Planning to investigate a value capture approach to increase the production of affordable housing. If adopted, the City would attach a condition to all residential discretionary actions: each project must include a specific amount of affordable housing. 

The City Council made their bed, and now they must sleep in it. 

On one hand, the Council and their planners are fully committed to neo-liberal economics, which means slashing as many public housing programs and governmental regulations on private investment as possible, replacing them with harsh policing paired with government incentives for developers. As intended, this approach has fanned the flames of real estate speculation. And, driven by the economic imperative to maximize profit, this feeding frenzy has resulted in a glut of financially lucrative luxury housing, but virtually no affordable housing. 

In the face of these unwelcome trends, the luxury housing crowd has spun two whoppers about LA’s housing crisis that I have previously debunked: 1) Luxury housing produces affordable housing by pulling down the rents of middle and low income housing. 2) Luxury housing transmutes into affordable housing, a type or reverse alchemy called filtering. When pressed, however, the tellers of these tall tales cannot cite any addresses or neighborhoods in LA where these supposed miracles have actually taken place. 

On the other hand, as hinted at in the value capture report, LA’s amalgam of existing housing programs barely produces any net gain in affordable housing. This is because many market housing projects have extensively eliminated existing affordable housing through relentless demolitions and evictions. The value capture report, however, did not mention a third factor that has shrunk the supply of affordable housing. As reported by John Schwada in CityWatch  the City of LA does such a poor job at inventorying and monitoring affordable housing that many landlords surreptitiously rent out these units at market prices, sometimes even as short-term rentals.  

This is why the City Council has uncomfortably moved down the path of increased regulation of discretionary residential land use actions through a value capture ordinance. It is their silent admission that their old programs and old justifications (the whoppers) have run out of gas. Even though the value capture option conflicts with their devotion to classical neo-liberal hocus-pocus, they don’t have a better option until such time that the Federal government restores many slashed public housing programs of yore. 

The Value Capture report describes existing affordable housing programs in LA, such as the poorly performing Density Bonus/SB 1818 option. It also inventories more dynamic programs from other cities, such as NYC. In the Big Apple, Mayor de Blasio has successfully championed inclusionary zoning (i.e., mandatory affordable housing requirements.) 

The report also outlines potential value capture approaches that LA should consider, largely imposing an affordable housing requirement on residential projects built through discretionary actions. Depending on the City Council’s eventual ordinance, LA’s likely value capture ordinance will include on-site affordable housing requirements for most discretionary actions, including the General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, and Height District Changes targeted by the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. Two other provisions, allowing developers to meet their affordable housing requirement through off-site construction or in lieu payments could also be folded into the final ordinance. 

But, regardless of what the final value capture ordinance will look like, I wish the City Council the best of luck, because their ordinance will have little impact on LA’s affordable housing crisis. This is primarily because the Council and its value capture ordinance cannot avoid the essence of their conundrum: the need of developers to maximize profits from their real estate investments. The greater the City’s affordable housing requirement, the lower the resulting private investment and number of affordable units. The smaller the City’s affordable housing requirement, the greater the resulting private investment in luxury housing. There really is no escape from this affordable housing dilemma. 

As far as I can tell, wide-scale up-zoning and up-planning is not proposed in the value capture ordinance, although this will certainly happen through Community Plan Updates and re:codeLA ordinances. But, if the City Council did eventually attach a mandatory affordable housing requirement to every Community Plan Update or re:codeLA ordinance containing up-zoning and up-planning, it would be a New York City-style sea change for Los Angeles. But, given the grip that real estate interests have on LA City’s elected officials and policy wonks, this outcome is now a flight of fancy. 

Furthermore, if the eventual value capture ordinance adopted an SB 1818 approach of automatically approving economic incentives for all zone changes and General Plan amendments that include an affordable housing component, it would be an extraordinary windfall for property owners. After their entitlements, with only token City surveillance, some of these new “affordable” units could be quietly rented out at market rates or the real money-maker: Air BnB’s. 

When this happens, the City Council’s self-imposed conundrum may finally reach its breaking point. They would have to admit that no private market approach, even value capture, can successfully address LA’s – or for that matter the entire country’s – housing crisis. The public sector could then either resume the construction and management of affordable housing or face levels of overcrowding, homelessness, and civil disturbances unseen in the United States for many decades and again beyond the capacity of the LAPD to contain. 

(Dick Platkin is a former LA city planner who reports on local planning issues for CityWatch. He also serves on the boards of the Beverly Wilshire Homes Association and the East Hollywood NC Planning Committee. Please send any comments or corrections to [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

POT POLITICS-California may soon join the growing number of states that allow recreational marijuana by passing the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Initiative (Proposition 64) on the November ballot. The measure would legalize marijuana and hemp under state law. Portions of the measure could take effect as soon as the day after Election Day. 

The potential for recreational legalization should cause local officials to rethink the way they currently approach marijuana laws and whether that approach should change before Election Day.

It aims to establish state agencies to oversee the licensing and regulation of a marijuana industry, enacting a sales tax of 15 percent and a cultivation tax of $9.25 per ounce for flowers and $2.75 per ounce for leaves, with exceptions for medical marijuana sales and cultivation. Proposition 64 is considered likely to pass, with recent polls indicating that roughly 60 percent of Californians support recreational legalization, and with a reported excess of 600,000 signatures on the initiative and financial backing of more than $2.25 million to date. 

Around the country, the trend toward legalizing recreational use of marijuana is growing more popular. Recreational marijuana use is legal in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia. Eleven other states, including Nevada, Minnesota, New York, Maryland and Massachusetts, may be legalizing recreational marijuana in the near future. Beyond that, 24 states already allow medical marijuana to treat a variety of physical and psychological ailments. 

Proposition 64 is endorsed by the Marijuana Policy Project of California and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana laws. If passed, it would legalize marijuana for those 21 years of age and over and would establish the Bureau of Marijuana Control within the Department of Consumer Affairs to regulate and license the marijuana industry. 

Proposition 64 would allow local governments to “enforce state laws and regulations for nonmedical marijuana businesses and enact additional local requirements for nonmedical marijuana businesses, but not require that they do so for nonmedical marijuana businesses to be issued a state license and be legal under state law.” It would also allow local governments to ban recreational marijuana businesses entirely. With respect to cultivation, Proposition 64 would allow local governments to “reasonably regulate” cultivation through zoning and other local laws, but only to ban outdoor cultivation outright. 

Proposition 64 would require local governments to allow indoor cultivation in private residences, and further indicates that any local ban on outdoor cultivation would be automatically repealed if the California Attorney General determines the federal government has legalized marijuana. The wording of the initiative likely makes its application both retroactive and prospective, meaning it would preempt existing regulations if they are inconsistent and prohibit new regulations that violate its provisions. 

Beyond that, some of Proposition 64’s provisions would likely take effect almost immediately. While the provisions surrounding recreational retailers and other businesses would not become functionally effective until the State began issuing licenses on January 1, 2018, recreational use and cultivation in private residences could begin as soon as the day after the election. 

As a result, it is imperative for concerned public agencies to consider, and to enact, regulations surrounding recreational use of marijuana prior to Election Day. 

This may seem counterintuitive — after all, it involves regulating around a law that has not even been enacted yet — but public agencies that fail to pass ordinances surrounding these issues could face preemption and grandfathering problems in the days, weeks and months after Proposition 64 passes. Artfully drafted ordinances can avoid some of this awkwardness by including provisions only triggered by the legalization of recreational marijuana. 

For example, a public agency could pass an ordinance banning all cultivation outright, and include a subsection clarifying that, in the event indoor cultivation in private residences is legalized, a regulatory scheme of the city’s choosing kicks in immediately. This would allow public agencies to regulate how they wish under current law, while protecting themselves in the event Proposition 64 passes. 

But the window is short. Most public agencies would have to take a proposed ordinance to a planning commission and have two readings of the ordinance before their city council, and all of this would arguably need to occur prior to October 8 to allow the 30-day period to lapse so the ordinance is effective prior to Election Day. 

Even if Proposition 64 becomes law, local governments still have wide latitude to regulate marijuana within their jurisdictions, but public agencies should act soon to ensure the most protection against grandfathered uses or preempted local schemes. A brand new regulatory scheme is growing in California, and local governments need to act swiftly to cultivate the proper regulations to ensure their communities flourish in the brave new world of recreational marijuana legalization.

(Originally published in PublicCEO. Jordan E. A. Ferguson provides legal services to cities, special districts and private clients across Southern California. As an associate in the Municipal Law and Special Districts practice groups of Best Best & Krieger LLP, his practice involves city attorney and general counsel services. He can be reached at [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EASTSIDER-Recently, the LA Times did an excellent investigative series about OxyContin use in LA, choreographed by the drug’s manufacturer, Purdue Pharma. 

The stories of people hooked on this stuff, and the collateral damage done to their loved ones is well presented by the Times, so I won’t even go there. Suffice it to say that their headline, “You Want a Description of Hell?” seems spot on. 

More pertinent to this article is the second part of the story, Here, with devastating detail, the Times proved beyond a reasonable doubt what the drug maker knew as it supplied hundreds of thousands of OxyContin pills to a sleazy front in MacArthur Park. 

So what do we have here other than a corrupt company pushing pills to the unsuspecting, without having to pay a price? Even if you are lucky enough not to have a loved one or relative with a drug problem, let’s consider the costs -- the costs to us, the taxpayers of Los Angeles -- as contrasted to the profits of big pharma and the even larger profits reaped by the big banks who launder the drug money. 

Our Costs--In most cities, public safety represents between 60 and 70 percent of the general fund budget and Los Angeles is no exception to the rule. That’s a lot of taxpayer money. And the more money spent on finding and apprehending drug related offenders, the less money is available for the community’s other safety concerns. We all know there exists a lot of unfunded need for public safety services. 

The LA City budget barely touches the surface of those costs such as paying for the criminal justice system required to handle all judicial matters as well as the costs of incarceration, rehabilitation, medical treatment and so forth. 

An enormous amount of money for that must come out of taxpayers’ pockets. And that doesn’t even begin to touch the human pain and suffering so eloquently described by the LA Times. 

We tend to shy away from a cost/benefit analysis of drug addiction and its associated expenses. But drugs and public safety are closely intertwined issues in our City, and the combination is hideously expensive, both in terms of the devastation to people and the budget-breaking costs to law enforcement -- and us. 

When dope dealers get busted, they go to jail. If addicts get caught, they also often go to jail for the crimes they committed to pay for the drugs and/or they clog up our health care system as their bodies deteriorate and they start to die dirty.

Purdue Pharma’s response to the Times article was to defend their product, OxyContin. 

They did not respond to the fact that they knew about the Lake Medical Clinic and the incredible amount of “product” that they were selling -- yet did nothing other than cover up. And back to costs, it took an entire team of federal, state and local law enforcement to build and prosecute the case. 

Their Profits--Clearly, we lose, big time. So who wins? How about the drug companies like Purdue Pharma and big financial services institutions like HSBC? In the case of Purdue Pharma, the money trail is pretty clear. They have made about $31 billion dollars selling OxyContin. 

It is also clear that Purdue Pharma decided to expand their market by targeting those with “chronic non-cancer pain,” which includes a broad swath of society. In such expanding markets, the economic winners are not only big pharma but the professional class of marketing executives, database developers, marketing collateral designers, sales forces, and middle managers. Not to mention attorneys.

It would seem, in fact, that if you are a white-collar crook, be it with a corporation like Purdue Pharma or a huge financial services institution like HSBC (an international banking corporation with its headquarters in London,) you can get away with serious crime and not pay a dime. 

I mention HSBC specifically, because there is clear evidence that they engaged in massive money laundering, both for foreign states such as Iran and Sudan, as well as good old fashion laundering of drug money for the drug cartels. For proof, as well as a link to the 288 page staff report, see “Too Big to Jail: Internal Treasury Documents Reveal Why Justice Department Did Not Prosecute HSBC.”  

There is no doubt that Attorney General Eric Holder intervened in the proposed Indictment of HSBC over these very issues. Result? No indictment. And this was not a one-off, by the way. In her confirmation hearings, our current Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, suggested that there was not enough evidence to prosecute HSBC, even though she oversaw the case and was aware of the staff recommendations. 

The Takeaway--Something is clearly wrong with our system of justice. And you and I are clearly paying for it in more ways than one. If the feds would start doing their job for a change, by prosecuting huge crooked drug companies and financial services institutions, then maybe the word would trickle down. I don’t know how direct a correlation there is, but it seems to me that vigorous prosecution of so-called “white-collar” crime would mean less profit for the corporate crooks and less crime for you and me in Los Angeles. 

Hey, one can hope.

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

PLANET WATCH--As wildfire rages in California, flooding affects millions in India and China, and eggs are fried on sidewalks in Iraq, scientists say global climate catastrophe is surpassing predictions. 

Southern California's years-long drought has resulted in one of the "most extreme" wildfires the region has ever seen. 

Record global heat in the first half of 2016 has caught climate scientists off-guard, reports Thompson Reuters Foundation. 

"What concerns me most is that we didn't anticipate these temperature jumps," David Carlson, director of the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) climate research program, told Thompson Reuters Foundation late Monday. "We predicted moderate warmth for 2016, but nothing like the temperature rises we've seen." 

"Massive temperature hikes, but also extreme events like floodings, have become the new normal," Carlson added. "The ice melt rates recorded in the first half of 2016, for example—we don't usually see those until later in the year." 

Indeed, extreme weather events are currently wreaking havoc around the world. 

In Southern California, firefighters are battling one of the "most extreme" fires the region has ever seen. The so-called sand fire had consumed 38,346 acres as of Wednesday morning and forced the evacuations of 10,000 homes, and one person has died. 

Meteorologist Eric Holthaus reported on the unusual fire last Friday in Pacific Standard: 

The fire, which started as a small brush fire along the side of Highway 14 near Santa Clarita, California, on Friday, quickly spread out of control under weather conditions that were nearly ideal for explosive growth. The fire doubled in size overnight on Friday, and then doubled again during the day on Saturday. 

"The fire behavior was some of the most extreme I've seen in the Los Angeles area in my career," says Stuart Palley, a wildfire photographer based in Southern California. "The fire was running all over the place. … It was incredible to see." There were multiple reports of flames 50 to 100 feet high on Saturday, which is unusual for fires in the region.

Time-lapse footage  filmed on July 23 showed the fire's tall flames and rapid growth.

"Since late 2011," Holthaus explained, "Los Angeles County has missed out on about three years' worth of rain. Simply put: Extreme weather and climate conditions have helped produce this fire's extreme behavior." 

The fire is an omen of things to come, according to Holthaus: "Even if rainfall amounts don't change in the future, drought and wildfire severity likely will because warmer temperatures are more efficient at evaporating what little moisture does fall. That, according to scientists, means California's risk of a mega-drought  --  spanning decades or more  --  is, or will be soon, the highest it's been in millennia." 

As University of California professor Anthony LeRoy Westerling wrote Tuesday in the Guardian: "A changing climate is transforming our landscape, and fire is one of the tools it uses. Expect to see more of it, in more places, as temperatures rise." 

Meanwhile, in India's northeast, Reuters reported Tuesday that over 1.2 million people "have been hit by floods which have submerged hundreds of villages, inundated large swathes of farmland and damaged roads, bridges and telecommunications services, local authorities said on Tuesday."

Reuters added that nearly 90,000 people are currently being housed in 220 relief camps. 

"Incessant monsoon rains in the tea and oil-rich state of Assam have forced the burgeoning Brahmaputra river and its tributaries to burst their banks -- affecting more than half of the region's 32 districts," the wire service reported. 

Local officials also told the media that "more than 60 percent of region's famed Kaziranga National Park, home to two-thirds of the world's endangered one-horned rhinoceroses, is also under water, leaving the animals more vulnerable to poaching." 

An unusually heavy monsoon season has also devastated communities in northern China, AFP reported Monday, with nearly 300 dead or missing and hundreds of thousands displaced after catastrophic flooding hit the region. 

And in Iraq, temperatures last week reached such unprecedented heights that a chef literally fried an egg on the sidewalk. The TODAY show tweeted footage of the incident: 

Stateside, the heat dome continues to inflict scorching summer temperatures across the country. In one Arizona locale, for example, meteorologists are predicting a scorching high temperature on Wednesday of 114° Fahrenheit. One Arizona resident posted a video Tuesday desperately asking people to pray for the state as it faces more hot weather. "It is still six billion degrees," the resident lamented. "Lord, we need you." 

Yet there appears to be little relief in sight: for the first time ever, USA Today reported Tuesday, the U.S. federal government's climate prediction center is forecasting hotter-than-normal temperatures for the next three months for "every square inch" of the country. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. 

(Nika Knight is a writer at Common Dreams … where this piece was first posted.) Photo: Nick Ut/AP. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

JUST THE FACTS--The latest Los Angeles City Crime Statistics reflect a growing trend of more and more crime victims and little relief in sight from our law enforcement agencies. From the LAPD to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to the California Highway Patrol, more and more attacks on our dedicated law enforcement personnel are taking place with few residents standing up and voicing their support for the men and women who risk their lives Protecting and Serving our diverse communities of Southern California.

And, the LA area men and women in blue are not the only ones paying a price. According to preliminary data compiled by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, as of July 20, 2016, sixty-seven federal, state and local law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty this year, increasing eight percent over the 62 officers killed in the same period last year. We've also found an alarming 78 percent spike in firearms-related officer fatalities, many of which were ambush-style killings.

Thirty-two officers have been killed in firearms-related fatalities this year, a dramatic increase of 78 percent, compared to 18 deaths during the same period last year. Traffic-related fatalities were the second leading cause of officer deaths, with 24 officers killed thus far in 2016. This represents a 17 percent decrease over the 29 officers killed in traffic-related incidents during the same period last year.

It is reported that crime in Los Angeles City is up in many categories. Namely assaults, robberies and property offenses. The overall crime increase is at 6.3%. Property crime is up 3.8% while violent crime has increased 15.9%. Violent crime has led by 19.2% in aggravated assaults and16.8% in robberies. 

The reasons for the increases can be attributed to many factors. Officers’ fear of being accused of profiling or engaging in selective enforcement is a contributing factor. Gang violence, the exploding homeless population, and the 2014 Proposition 47 that reduced many crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor contribute to those negative numbers. And, Measure 109 has done its part .... while the state prison population has been reduced, the communities have become the victims of these measures. 

You will soon be voting on the elimination of the California Death Penalty. Proposition 62 will be on the November ballot. Keep in mind, with the elimination of the California Death Penalty, more people will be filling the overcrowded State Prisons forcing the release of other violent inmates into our communities.  

If you live in a portion of Los Angeles served by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the Sheriff reports an increase of 8.4% in violent crime and a 6.8% in property crimes.

●●

HE FOUGHT THE LAW AND THE LAW WON-- There was an arrogant man that owned a number of trailers and parked them on valley streets to advertise a variety of items and services. The trailers were left on major roadways and created serious traffic hazards throughout the San Fernando Valley and generated a large number of resident complaints. 

At the time, I was a Los Angeles City Councilman and moved to eliminate the trailers from the roadways. Signs were posted prohibiting the parking of the trailers on Valley streets and citation enforcement began. The citations had little to no impact on the parking of the trailers and the frustration of the community grew more and more. 

I worked with then Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield, our current Los Angeles City Councilman, who represented my district in the assembly. We teamed up and drafted state legislation prohibiting the parking of the trailers on all roadways. The legislation eliminated the problem and peace returned to the communities. The arrogant man … I will not mention his name … appealed the state legislation. This month, a federal court upheld the legislation and ruled that it did not violate any rules or constitutional provisions. I Thank Councilman Blumenfleld and the court for upholding the legislation banning the trailers from all city roadways.

●●

TAXES AND FEES AND MORE TAXES AND FEES … ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT SOME OF THE PROPOSED INCREASES--The DWP has already increased your Water and Power Rates. The new rates from 2016 thru 2020 have been approved and will be reflected on your future DWP Bills. As they say, this is a done deal and nothing can be done to change it. 

However, you have a vote for the proposed future tax and fee increases. 

I will start with increased taxes for the Transit. This will add a ½ cent to sales tax until the end of time. This will increase our sales tax to 9 ½ cents. 

There is the proposed $1.5 Billion Dollar Bond or Parcel Tax to address the Homeless. Either way, your taxes will increase … likely your property tax. 

The County has proposed … then changed their mind … to implement a tax on Marijuana.   This is assuming that the November election will see Marijuana approved for recreational use in California. This is proposed to raise between $78 to $130 million annually. 

If you are rich enough to be in a Millionaires club, you will see an increase in your taxes to address the homeless. 

As we approach the November election, I am sure additional taxes and tax increases will be brought up to address the many ills of our city. The current Los Angeles City budget of $8.76 BILLION is just not enough money to run the City of the Angeles!  

(Dennis P. Zine is a 33-year member of the Los Angeles Police Department and former Vice-Chairman of the Elected Los Angeles City Charter Reform Commission, a 12-year member of the Los Angeles City Council and a current LAPD Reserve Officer who serves as a member of the Fugitive Warrant Detail assigned out of Gang and Narcotics Division. He writes Just the Facts for CityWatch. You can contact him at [email protected].)

-cw

WATCHING THE NEIGHBORHOOD-An entity called a ‘Business Improvement District’ or BID is almost here. The City Council will meet and vote on its creation in late August. What? You don’t know anything about it? You and just about everyone else in Venice. This is one very big secret. 

Here’s what it is. A specific ‘district,’ run by a public-private partnership, whose boundaries have been gerrymandered to include properties owned by the pushers of this entity and large swathes of city property. Boundaries include Ocean Front Walk from North Venice to Barnard Way, includes part of Rose, touches parts of Main St., 4th, Sunset, Abbot Kinney, and Windward. It’s a large area. See the map for a better picture of its reach. The public relations put out by supporters is that they are goilng to make our world in Venice cleaner and ‘safer.’ I think we are hearing that line right now on our national political scene. Who doesn’t like ‘safe?’

This proposed BID will be run by a public-private partnership which will receive funding from the City estimated to include about $450,000 from the General Fund, to run the proposed ‘clean and safe’ services. There appears to be little accountability and oversight built into this process. The assessments on the owners (don’t call it a tax) will filter into the coffers of the partnership. We are talking about millions of dollars. Property owners who vote for the BID, will have no say in what goes on with this entity unless they somehow get on its board. Fat Chance! 

The gerrymandered district includes a huge amount of city-owned property. It is estimated that the assessment from city property will comprise about 25% of assessment monies collected and, in turn, the managers of city land will have 25% of the vote for or against a BID. You already know how the city will vote on this. The deck is stacked in favor of a ‘yes’ vote for a BID. 

This new group will create its own quasi police force complete with batons, pepper spray and uniforms to keep ‘order.’ Call them green shirts, call them brown shirts — we all know what they are: minimally trained ‘officers’ who will attempt to assert their newly acquired authority over the residents and whomever else (think the poor and the homeless) crosses their path, get in their way or those who just don’t look like they ‘belong.’ They are the Deciders. Sounds scary, right? You should be scared. BID’s are supposed to keep the place cleaner too — now that’s not scary, right? Who doesn’t like clean? So remember the BID mantra — ‘clean and safe.’ 

We have not read a public statement from the council office on this BID creation. BID’s seem like an elegant way to outsource the City’s job and many of its responsibilities. Cities seem to love BID’s.

Last but not least, we should tell you that this very quietly forming BID is being pushed by some property owners who are the most interested in controlling OFW — owners who have stealthily converted many of our residential units into short-term rentals —entire buildings we should add, are pushing for a BID formation. Some of the BID pushers are now being investigated by the LA City Attorney for illegal conversions of rental units. This was announced in the LA Times. 

Gentrification on OFW will be a by-product of this entity as it has been in other BID’s in other cities. While there may be a lot in this BID for the big property owners, there is nothing in it for tenants who will have absolutely no say in the BID forming around them and their businesses. No vote, nada. In no way is a BID a democratic process. Tenants can expect the property owners to pass on the costs of the BID to them. 

If you want this BID, stay quiet. If you don’t, say something. Make ‘big noise.’ There are many lawsuits already filed against BID’s all over the city, your big noise will be in very good company. 

Tara Devine is the BID’s consultant and point person for information. Her contact is: [email protected]

(Marian Crostic and Elaine Spierer are co-founders of Imagine Venice … where this commentary was first posted.)  Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.