NO ON BLACK HOUSING-To quote the late, great Martin Luther King, who deserves his own holiday as much as any President, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."  Well, at CSULA, we've got no dream … we’ve got a nightmare:  a New Racism, as repugnant and dangerous as any Old Racism we've ever seen. 

I'm sure there are a few "diversity" types or "social justice warrior" types, who will defend the "living learning community" of black-focused housing at Cal State Los Angeles, and to those creepy types I wish them all the racist monikers and scorn they richly deserve. 

Shall we have separate bathrooms and water fountains for African-American students, but this time of

THEIR choosing to make it all "better"?  How about black robes with eyes cut out, for good measure, so those living at the black-focused housing can recognize a fellow self-excluded member and feel "safe"?  

Perhaps we can have some "white-focused" housing, too, now that we're going "full-on racist"? 

Yes, these ARE very harsh criticisms and statements, but after a half-century of our nation fighting to create a melting pot in America, which Martin Luther King and his heroic team of TRUE "social justice warriors" fought to make real in the United States (and not just diversity among white/European backgrounds), this regressive CSULA housing experiment is such a horrific step backwards that it should be stopped altogether. 

As a physician who worked for outreach to minority students to attend my medical school in Texas, and who still advocates for more medical Spanish and cultural sensitivity to be taught to medical professionals, I've also observed the need for patients and professionals alike to get over their cultural differences. 

We're "culturally-sensitive," which is smart and just, but are we as a society brave and demanding of our need to get over those cultural barriers, and to emphasize that there's only one race--the human race? 

And that we're of one people--the American People--in this nation? 

The only exclusive/cultural needs that might be open for housing is for those based on gender and sexual preference ... although those, too, have their risks in a society that has to live with and work with each other.  So while LGBTQ and single-sex housing might make for greater comfort to those living there, it's best for all of us to end bullying and fighting to coexist. 

College is supposed to prepare us for the real world, and any successful American will not get to his/her goals without confronting the differences and similarities of our fellow human beings.

Certainly, any black student who truly wants to succeed will have nothing to do with this form of housing--which is publicly-funded, and should be subject to appropriate rules and governmental oversight. There remains the option of black colleges, but sooner or later there comes a time when anyone and everyone must choose to address and (hopefully!) befriend ALL our fellow Americans. 

There is an answer to this nightmare at CSULA, and it's premised on the "community" being open to all students (there is a waiting list, however): 

It is my hope that all Asian, Latino, and white students truly interested in learning about the segment of our nation who happens to be African-American apply to live there.  Let diversity really work, and let enough non-black students attend so that the "safety" of an all-black-only student housing community is prevented ... because that "safety" can only lead to racial division (which we do NOT need!). 

The education of what it is like to grow up black in America is fundamental to all of us.  And ditto to learn what it is like to grow up Latino, Asian, and even white (which ranges from Italian to Greek to Jewish, just as "Latino" ranges from Mexican to Cuban to Peruvian). 

The medical group I work at, and the other medical groups I worked at previously, had black, Latino and Asian leaders ... but the ethnic background was de-emphasized in favor of excellence. 

There's a time when we need to talk, and to debate, and to learn.  Then there's a time to act, and to live, and to make a stand. 

I'll go with the time-tested and time-proven "melting pot" of what best makes our nation special.

The New Racism at CSULA is as repugnant and deserving of scorn as any Old Racism.  It stinks, and belongs on the trash heap of failed ideas as much as Jim Crow laws, Socialism, Fascism, and Communism.

I'll stick with MLK's ideals, and eschew the KKK ... in whatever hellish form any wannabe separatist, racist new trend may show up.  Black separatism is as pathetic as any White separatism. 

Hey, CSULA!  Show some real "character" and end this form of New Racism! 

• SEE OPPOSING POINT OF VIEW 

(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at  [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.

-cw

YES ON BLACK HOUSING--California State University of Los Angeles was right to establish black-only residence areas for its students.

In November 2015, the Black Student Union at Cal State LA wrote a letter to University President William A. Covino explaining feelings of victimization that they had experienced on campus.

The letter, found on the Afrikan Black Coalition’s website, reads, “Racially insensitive remarks, and micro-aggressions, by professors and students create a learning environment that is not conducive to the overall learning atmosphere. This presents unnecessary barriers to the success of Black students here on campus.”

In addition to the students’ accounts of racism on campus, the letter contains a list of demands to resolve some of the issues, including black-only housing options.

“WE DEMAND the creation and financial support of a CSLA housing space delegated for Black students and a full time Resident Director who can cater to the needs of Black students,” wrote members of Cal State LA’s Black Student Union.

After feeling victimized due to racial prejudices, members of the union were justified in their request for segregated housing.

The Mission Statement of Cal State LA’s Housing Services Program reads, “As a community of scholars in support of the University, we endeavor to build residents’ capacity for academic achievement, leadership and global citizenship.”

Housing Services cannot complete this goal if residents are feeling attacked in their own homes.

Members of the Black Student Union also conveyed the need for more affordable housing options.  In their letter to President Covino, the students said that Black-Only Housing options would provide African-American students with more affordable living options on campus.

Cal State made the right move by responding to the demands sensitively.

According to College Fix, the university is opening the Halisi Scholars Black Living-Learning Community for the first time during the 2016 Fall Semester. The community “focuses on academic excellence and learning experiences that are inclusive and non-discriminatory,” said Cal State LA spokesperson Robert Lopez in an email to College Fix.

The LA-based university is not the only college to offer segregated housing options for black students. UCONN, UC Berkley, and UC Davis have residence halls that provide black students the opportunity to form living arrangements with each other.

The addition of the Halisi Scholars Learning Community could contribute to awareness of the racially-charged problems that plague the campus. In addition to black-only housing, the Black Student Union demanded that all faculty and staff complete cultural competency training.

Perhaps the combination of the new living and learning options and increased cultural awareness on the university’s campus will provide a more inclusive atmosphere for all students.

• SEE OPPOSING POINT OF VIEW

(Mark Jones posts at Opposing Views  … where this piece originated.)

-cw 

GUEST COMMENTARY-After Marcie Edwards announced her retirement as General Manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Mayor Garcetti chose the department's Chief Operating Officer, David Wright, to replace her. 

Wright, who is currently serving as Interim General Manager, was an obvious choice in some respects. His experience in public utilities is deep. 

But DWP is a department with serious problems. Its workers and management are compensated significantly more than other city employees or other similar employees around the country. DWP is the eighth worst public utility in the United States, in terms of consumer satisfaction. 

Is Wright the best choice to lead DWP into its next era? Will he be the leader who can reform one of the city's most inefficient and hated institutions? The answers to those questions are unclear. 

Wright will need to be confirmed by the LA City Council in order to serve as permanent GM. This is a real opportunity for the Council to show their constituents they take DWP reform seriously. All too often the Council has served as a rubber stamp for the Mayor's policies and decisions. That can‘t happen here. 

Wright's track record and plans to improve the department need to be carefully scrutinized. He needs to honestly and thoroughly address five areas of questions.                                                                                                          

How is he planning to overhaul the massive bureaucracy of DWP to work for its ratepayers rather than its union and management? What are his plans for the department’s workforce numbers and future collective bargaining agreements? 

How will he increase the department's use of renewable energy and decrease its dependence on coal fired power plants? 

How will DWP respond to the drought if it continues another five years? Ten years? How can we continue to meet water reduction targets? 

What is his plan to improve customer satisfaction? How will he convince the public to trust DWP management? 

Finally, what can the City Council, the Mayor, and public expect in terms of a timeline for reform? What are the metrics and benchmarks he will use to measure success? 

This confirmation process should be a vigorous and thoughtful debate. No 15-0 vote after a one day hearing. No rubber stamping. This is serious, and it's an opportunity the City Council should not pass up.

(Mitchell Schwartz is candidate for Los Angeles Mayor 2017.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

JUST THE FACTS— I recently filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and LAPD for forcing LAPD Detectives and others to work on duty at Ram’s Football Games at the Coliseum. 

While the Ram’s are willing to pay for LAPD security inside the Coliseum, they are not willing to pay for the LAPD personnel working outside the Coliseum. 

There is no doubt that security is necessary to protect the fans and their vehicles as they park and pay up to $100 to a gas station operator or homeowner along Dr. Martin Luther King Blvd since parking is so limited at the Coliseum. LAPD detective personnel forced to work the detail on a working day means that they have to take a day off during the week and their cases are stacking up more and more. 

While the LAPD has run out of patrol officers to police the city and work the Coliseum, it has become necessary to assign detective personnel to work the Ram’s games for public safety. This is a gift of public funds and that is the basis of my lawsuit against the city. 

With the owner of the Rams, Mr. Stan Kroenke, worth an estimated $8 BILLION DOLLARS and the Rams valued at $3 BILLION DOLLARS, don’t feel sorry for Mr. Kroenke. Mr. Kroenke and the Rams need to pay for all the security at the Ram’s games at the Coliseum. I hope this matter is settled sooner rather than later for the benefit of the LAPD Personnel and citizens of Los Angeles.

●●

When Elected Officials pledge to improve our quality of life, there is a cost. That cost comes in various forms. It could be higher fees or taxes or bond measures. It all comes down to all of us paying more … one way or another. 

Here are 4 of the proposed Los Angeles City measures that you will be able to vote on when you go to the election booth on November 8, 2016.

1. I will start out with the pressing matter of the Homeless in our region. There is a Homeless Reduction and Prevention, Housing and Facilities Bond. This is Proposition H. 

2. Then there is the Affordable Housing and Labor Standards related to City Planning. This is Initiative Ordinance J. 

3. With our Water and Power rates increasing over the coming years, The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power wants to change the Commission’s structure. This is Charter Amendment R. 

4. The City of Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions impacting Airport Peace Officers. Charter Amendment S. 

These 4 Los Angeles Ballot Measures are allegedly created to improve the living conditions and services in Los Angeles. Will they accomplish that or just cost you more money in various forms of taxes and or fees. 

Now comes the good part. I will expose the truth of the measures and hopefully encourage you to vote to improve city services without taking more money out of your pocket. 

The first item is the Homeless Reduction and Prevention, Housing and Facilities Bond. Proposition H.     

This measure will provide a $1,200,000,000 General Obligation Bond to develop housing and facilities for the homeless and affordable housing for those at risk of homelessness. Using the Comprehensive Homeless Strategy that was adopted by the city on Feb 9, 2016, the housing need calls for 13,000 units of new housing including 10,000 units of supportive housing for the homeless in Los Angeles.   

The measure will require the following to gain the public trust, if that is possible. 

1. An Annual Plan that prioritizes funding for supportive housing and facilities and the necessary bond issuance to finance those development
2. Establish a Citizens Oversight and Administrative Oversight Committees to monitor the bond program. 
3. Produce an annual financial audit that will be available to the public. 

This measure will become effective if two-thirds of the voters support it. 

With Governor Brown unwilling to accept that Los Angeles has a Homeless Emergency as declared by L.A City leaders, and without state funds to help reduce the Homeless population in Los Angeles, is it necessary to float a Bond to the tune of $1,200,000,000 dollars to help reduce the homeless population? 

There is no doubt that the Homeless Population is increasing and something has to be done to address it. Will the 13,000 Homeless units be in your neighborhood or on your street? Are you willing to accept that? The latest homeless count in Los Angeles listed 26,000 as homeless with and 11% increase over last year. Will there be more and more homeless coming to Los Angeles as housing is provided to assist them? 

I will address the three other measures in my future articles.

(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

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-If you want to understand the deeper politics of empowerment, especially when it comes to Neighborhood Councils in Los Angeles, please read on. 

This is the political essence of empowerment: no one who has power bothers to become empowered.

They are already the decision makers, what George W. Bush called the “deciders.” This is the essence of their governmental power. And, no one who has been “empowered” actually has any real power because they are still NOT the decision makers. 

EASTSIDER-As we move closer to November, the subject of DWP Reform is still front and center in the media, including CityWatch. The reform issue itself is serious business, for the simple reason that, win or lose, this will likely be the last DWP reform measure for a longtime to come. 

Sadly, most voters will only know about Charter Amendment RRR, as it is named, based on the YES and NO arguments in their in their Voter Guide. And that’s assuming that they even read the arguments. Truth is, very few people even read the LA Times anymore, and there is virtually no coverage at all about DWP Reform on the cable and network television “news” channels. Even the CityWatch audience, great as it is, consists of a drop in the bucket in terms of the total number of registered voters in Los Angeles for the November 8 General Election. 

The Ballot Arguments 

It’s a shame, because the arguments for and against Charter Amendment RRR, aren’t really helpful in trying to understand what the Amendment is about and what it really means. Remember we tend to forget that, by definition, ballot arguments are political arguments, not analysis. Persuasion, not truth, is their goal. Further, the names associated with the pro Arguments are a bit misleading, as they imply wholehearted endorsement. 

For example, you will see Marcie Edwards (General Manager of DWP), Mel Levine (DWP Board President) and Dr. Fred Pickel (Ratepayer Advocate) listed on the YES statement. If you look beyond the names, however, their appearance as YES proponents does not imply unqualified enthusiasm. Marcie Edwards was appointed by the Mayor, and so was Mel Levine, and they serve at his pleasure. So you will never know what they really think. Dr. Pickel was charged with drafting the YES ballot argument itself, so again, his name does not necessarily reflect what his personal opinion/beliefs may be. 

Not to belabor the point, but the Mayor appoints the entire DWP Board of Directors, guaranteeing that, notwithstanding what they might want or say in private, their input had little to do with the City Council sausage making machine that produced Charter Amendment RRR. 

I don’t know who actually penned the NO argument, but it’s also fairly misleading, as you can expect from those opposed to a ballot measure. For example, RRR is described as a “power grab by the DWP,” but the measure was in fact concocted by the LA City Council, not the DWP. Actually, you could argue that DWP reform started out because Councilmember Fuentes was looking for another full time gig as a DWP Commissioner. This because the unpopular “worst legislator in California” knew he would be voted out of office if he ran again for City Council. 

A Taste of the Real Language 

Truth is, if you actually read the ballot language, it is some 16 pages of highly technical, complex and often difficult to understand language. Even those of us who have tracked the evolution of the measure from the beginning get buried in the verbiage. There is no simple “yes” or “no” answer to the proposed Charter amendment. 

Contracting 

While those in opposition to the measure cry out that the City Council will lose all authority over contracts by the proposed DWP Board, the actual language doesn’t say this. 

In one of those statutory gobbledygook twists of the English language, Section 245 of the LA City Charter, details the City Council’s ability to veto Board actions, including those of the DWP. The subsection containing the DWP’s ability to use delegated authority to enter into contracts, lists the following as being exempt from Council review: 

(8) … “actions of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners regarding contracts involving consideration reasonably valued at less than an amount specified by ordinance...” 

In other words, the LA City Council gets to write whatever ordinance they want that sets the threshold for Council review of DWP contracts. That amount could be the same as it is now, or it could be X millions of dollars. Either way, the City Council, not the DWP Board, determines the amount. Not only that, if I remember correctly, it only takes about 90 days to revise any ordinance that the Council doesn’t like. (Just in case they get it wrong the first time.) 

Civil Service 

If you think the delegation language is ambiguous, check out the so-called “elimination of Civil Service for DWP” referred to in the ballot arguments. I will not quote the proposed Charter text here, since the language goes on for about two pages in the Resolution and makes the contracting language look like a masterpiece of clarity. For the brave, you can read the full text of City Charter Amendment RRR here.  Look starting at the end of page 11 for the text concerning civil service. 

Honestly, even reading the language is no help unless you’re an expert on public sector employment law. As I noted in a prior CityWatch article:

“As to the proposed amendment on personnel and hiring, I can only say that my hat’s off to an absolute masterpiece of obfuscation, persiflage, and all round mealy-mouth platitudes. Clearly, over the years Council President Herb Wesson has mastered the art of writing a lot of words while saying nothing, and he has really outdone himself in this one. 

“For example, the ‘salary setting authority’ ‘may’ waive some or all of the Civil Service requirements ‘pursuant to a legally binding collectively bargained MOU.’ Then there are further requirements that the ‘waivers’ would have to maintain ‘specific merit system standards.’ Finally the Council ‘may’ but doesn’t have to, even designate the new DWP Board as the ‘salary setting authority.’” 

Unlimited power to set Rate Increases

The opponents of the measure argue that the DWP and its “bureaucrats” will have the unfettered ability to jack up our rates with virtually no oversight. I guess that’s worse than the City Council’s ability to do the same? 

Anyhow, the language of Charter Amendment RRR doesn’t support this contention. Section 676 (Strategic Plan and Rate Setting) provides for a series of four year rate/revenue plans, which the Council can approve or disapprove. Once approved, anything that exceeds the parameters of the plan has to be approved by the Council and the Mayor. Further, “The City Council, by ordinance, may further define the policies, projects, programs and revenue requirements that shall be within the parameters of the Plan.” 

While I know that the courts have ruled that ballot arguments can lie like a rug, there are legitimate reasons to question Amendment RRR without engaging in hyperbole. 

Our DWP Committee Forum/Debate 

The complexity of DWP Reform was made apparent at our own DWP Committee meeting on Saturday September 3, 2016. At the impromptu forum, our very own Jack Humphreville was the moderator, and the panelists were Dr. Pickel (Ratepayer Advocate and author of the YES argument), Tony Wilkinson (DWP MOU Chair and participant in the dialogue that produced Amendment RRR), and Nate Holden, long time politician and former City Councilmember from 1987-2003, who is signatory to the NO argument on the measure. 

Even this highly knowledgeable group couldn’t agree on what the language of Charter Amendment RRR means. For example, the much ballyhooed crux of the reform measure has to do with how the city civil service system would be handled if the measure passes. Proponents admitted that there was no certainty as to the outcome or even if there would be any changes, and opponents said that the civil service system as we know it would be utterly destroyed if RRR passes. Dr. Pickel, of course, could not weigh in as we were in a City facility and he was author of the YES language. 

Let’s look at reality. Brian D’Arcy’s IBEW Local 18 is the 800-pound gorilla in the DWP World. This powerful union represents most of the Department’s employees and is not shy about flexing its muscle. Well, surprise, surprise: Local 18 is quietly in favor of the DWP Reform measure, although you would be hard pressed to find much in the way of public statements to that effect. The much smaller peripheral unions -- in terms of DWP membership -- are vigorously opposed to the measure, partly in fear that the idea could spread to the rest of the City, and partly because they lack the clout that Local 18 has with the Department. 

For further detail, and an alternate point of view, check out Julie Butcher’s recent CityWatch article describing the Charter Amendment as “Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!” Actually, her opposition to RRR is a much better read than the ballot arguments. 

The Takeaway 

Love it or hate it, the language of RRR is the necessarily flawed result of the LA City Council-Mayor-City Attorney meat grinder as they desperately try to shift the focus from their own incompetence in overseeing the DWP, the potential fiscal disaster if they lose the current lawsuit over the transfer fees annually extorted from DWP, and the huge ratepayer pushback over recent DWP rate increases. 

My personal belief is that this measure is poorly written and the language itself is difficult to read, much less understand. Given all the paid city staff available to write and vet the endless revisions, I think that this much obfuscation has to be deliberate. Further, I am unable to find the bag of goodies for us, the electorate, in Charter Amendment RRR that would motivate an actual ratepayer to vote yes.

Most voters I know, faced with a confusing ballot measure which will definitely have a long lasting impact on every ratepayer in the City of Los Angeles, will tend to throw their hands up in the air and simply vote NO! 

I find their cynicism to be well founded when it concerns City Hall and I agree with that sentiment.

(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.)