CITY HALL-Looking at a potentially close vote at the City Council’s August 23^rd meeting, City Council members who favor the Planning Department’s proposed repeal of Los Angeles City’s existing regulations for development of second dwelling units (sometimes called “granny flats”) succeeded in getting the Council’s vote postponed until Wednesday August 31st.   

Many repeal opponents left the August 23^rd meeting angry and frustrated that the Council, without public testimony or debate, had pushed the vote back another week. But with momentum strongly favoring the many homeowner groups and neighborhood councils who vigorously oppose the repeal efforts, the last-minute continuance apparently reflected concerns by some Councilmembers that the Council’s balance is now tipping against the Department’s proposal. 

The Superior Court had ordered City planning and building officials to stop their unlawful policy refusing to enforce the City’s adopted second unit standards. The Planning Department responded by proposing that the Council should repeal the existing ordinance’s protective standards. This would mean the City “defaults” to very permissive state standards allowing 1,200 square foot second units (as large as many primary residences) to be built “by right” throughout the City’s single family residential zones, including sensitive hillside locations. 

The Department marshaled public support for its repeal proposal principally from developers who were “stranded” in the midst of constructing second units that had been permitted under the LADBS’s unlawful policy of disregarding the City’s protective standards. To date, the Department has refused to consider the obvious alternative of “grandfathering” most of these stranded permit holders, while at the same time preserving and enforcing the current adopted protective standards for future permits. 

Seeking to avoid opposition to its repeal proposal, the Department put it on a “fast track,” infuriating homeowner representatives. One typical homeowner recently wrote the Council: 

Repealing this ordinance will have lasting negative impacts on the character and infrastructure of our neighborhoods.  Abandoning the city's local control of second dwelling units will leave us at the mercy of incredibly weak state standards, and throw open the gates to developers to further fuel real estate speculation in our neighborhoods.  

You have several options at your disposal to bring the City into compliance with state law on second units. There is simply no reason to discard our protective local standards. If revisions to the Second Dwelling Unit ordinance are necessary, at the very least they must be considered with adequate public outreach, not on the current “fast track” basis, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to consider proposed changes and express their opinion.  

The homeowner coalition that opposes the Department’s repeal proposal stressed the positive aspects of the Council’s postponement of the second unit vote until August 31st.   Pointing out that the postponement meant opponents would have “one more week to make our voices heard on this issue,” the coalition urged: 

The vote is shaping up to be very close. We have come so far since the PLUM Committee voted in favor of the repeal at the end of June, and we must keep the momentum going.  It is critical for the City Council to continue to hear how the proposed repeal would harm neighborhoods. We cannot simply abandon our local standards for the development of second units in single-family residential zones. 

We have built a terrific coalition that has been active and engaged on this issue. Our efforts have not gone unnoticed, and we are in the final stretch. 

There are three ways that you can help in advance of Wednesday’s vote: 

• Send an email to the City Council
• Place a call to your Councilmember’s office
• Attend the Council meeting on the 31^st 

CityWatch readers should consider doing the same.

(Carlyle Hall is an environmental and land use lawyer in Los Angeles who founded the Center for Law in the Public Interest and litigated the well-known AB 283 litigation, in which the Superior Court ordered the City to rezone about one third of the properties within its territorial boundaries (an area the size of Chicago) to bring them into consistency with its 35 community plans. He also co-founded LA Neighbors in Action, which has recently been litigating with the City over its second dwelling unit policies and practices.)

-cw

THE GUSS REPORT-A week ago, the Los Angeles Times followed-up on a story I broke a week earlier in CityWatch regarding the severe personal financial troubles of Los Angeles City Council President Herb Wesson. 

David Zahniser, the Times’ veteran City Hall reporter, indicated in his article that Wesson refused to be interviewed but instead submitted a prepared statement via his media flack, who wrote, “Wesson attributed the problems to the home he and his wife bought for $759,000 …” 

The home he refers to was purchased by Wesson and his wife, Fabian, in 2007. It is located on Virginia Road in the City of Los Angeles’ Council District 10 that Wesson has represented since his 2005 election. For clarity, let’s refer to that property as “Virginia Road / LA City.” 

While Wesson may attribute his current multiple mortgage defaults and other financial problems to that purchase, his money troubles go back not years, but decades, even though he earned a consistent and generous government paycheck in various managerial and elected positions: 

• In 1993, the Wessons defaulted on a mortgage for their house on Roberts Avenue in Culver City (“Roberts Ave / Culver City”.) The loan was from Avco Financial Services, a high risk, high interest rate lender that has since become a leader in the payday loan industry. 

Coincidentally, a senior Avco executive described the company to me as, at that time, a “lender of last resort for people who cannot get a loan elsewhere,” meaning that by borrowing from Avco, Wesson’s money problems are traceable to at least the 1980s.

Wesson had bought Roberts Ave/Culver City for $153,000 in 1988, but took a huge loss in 1993 when it sold for just $60,000. A year and a half later it got flipped for $168,000. Today it is valued at nearly $850,000. What does that tell you? 

And that isn’t the biggest red flag here. 

The default that triggered Wesson’s costly loss took place on the same day as its sale, November 24, 1993, which is also the day that he purchased a much pricier ($425,000) home on Bedford Avenue in Ladera Heights, an unincorporated area of LA County. Let’s call that property “Bedford Ave / LA County” so it is understood that it, like the property on Roberts Avenue, is not within the City of Los Angeles. 

• In 1995, the Wessons defaulted on Bedford Ave / LA County, but narrowly avoided a scheduled foreclosure sale. Their overdue $21,086.06 indicates that payments were rarely, if ever, made to that point. 

During the years of these first two defaults, Wesson earned a comfortable living as the chief-of-staff for Los Angeles City Councilmember Nate Holden and as chief-of-staff for Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Burke. This is according to Wesson’s unreliable Wikipedia page which, in one section, incorrectly says he was elected to LA City Council on July 1, 2005, while in another section it correctly says he was elected on November 8, 2005 in a special election to replace future felon Councilmember Martin Ludlow who suddenly resigned after only two years in office. 

• In 2002, the Wessons defaulted once more on Bedford Avenue / LA County, but again avoided a foreclosure sale for being in arrears to the tune of $34,619.45. This is while serving as an elected member of the California State Assembly, where he later became its powerful Speaker, holding great sway over the state’s budget and economic health. 

None of these earlier defaults were mentioned in Zahniser’s article, which focused exclusively on the Wessons’ defaults that took place after their late-2007 purchase of Virginia Road / LA City.

Also missing from his Times article are the massive federal and state tax liens that hit the Wessons after their purchase of Virginia Road / LA City in 2008-2009 and 2011-2012 totaling nearly $100,000 in taxes, interest and penalties for income earned during Wesson’s first four years (2005-2008) on City Council, either from salaries or other sources of income. 

Still, Wesson is a deft politician who now rakes in a combined annual household income in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, while sidestepping mortgage foreclosures that continue to hound him as recently as a few weeks ago, as detailed in Zahniser’s and my articles. And last year, he finagled a 17-month extension of his final term on City Council (and those of some of his colleagues) which also pads their public pensions by thousands of dollars, with a voter-turnout maneuver described by his former Council rival and fiscal hawk Bernie Parks as “a gimmick.” 

And here the story takes an odd, possibly perjurious turn. To be continued.

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a writer who contributes to CityWatch, Huffington Post, KFI-AM 640 and elsewhere. He blogs on humane issues at http://ericgarcetti.blogspot.com/. The opinions he expresses are not necessarily those of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL--On August 31, 2016, the LA City Council could make a huge mistake that will have lasting impacts on our community. 

Once upon a time, the city of Los Angeles created regulations that protected the characteristics of single family home zones. 

In essence, some of these regulations prevented homeowners from building big second homes on a single family home property. Makes sense, right? Because that’s what “single family home zone” means. 

So, in LA, a wide variety of different neighborhoods are zoned R-01. And these R-01 neighborhoods are really a great place to live, partly because our city’s zoning regulations have helped to keep them that way. 

These regulations did allow homeowners in those zones to build another detached home on the property. But that structure had to be small, low profile, and it couldn’t have a separate address. According to LA’s regulations, homeowners were free to build “granny flats” for their relatives to live in. And remember, they are always free to add an addition to their home. That was never in question. 

This worked, for the most part, to protect the character of the neighborhood. It guarded against overdevelopment. 

But one day, in 2010, the Planning Department made a mistake, based on incorrect legal advice, instructing officials to ignore the City’s standards, and instead, to follow the state standards, which are much more lenient. For the next six years, the City issued about 75 permits each year for second units in these single family home neighborhoods. Almost all of the permits were for structures that exceeded the City’s adopted standards. 

Earlier this year, a judge determined that the Planning Department’s “ZA Memo 120” was not legal. Since then, permitting for these structures (even the small ones that would have met the city’s regulations) has been halted. 

But instead of amending the City’s regulations, City Council is now considering throwing out the regulations entirely and defaulting to the considerably more lenient state’s standards. In essence, this would mean returning to ZA Memo 120, which a Judge has already revoked. 

Why does LA have different zoning standards than the state of California? Because LA has specific needs. Just like every other major metropolitan city in this country, our city has adopted regulations to protect against overdevelopment and against negative impacts on the environment, infrastructure, and the character of neighborhoods. 

All of this may seem silly to Angelenos who live on larger parcels of land or in apartment buildings. They might say, what’s the point? If it is your land, you should be allowed to use it any way you want. Right? 

I can see why some may think that. But imagine if you lived in my neighborhood: 

Welcome to the quintessential San Fernando Valley single family neighborhood. Our houses are very close together. In my cute, quiet little neighborhood known as “Kester Ridge” in Van Nuys, our mostly small houses sit on mostly small lots. Our fences (which cannot exceed eight feet in our backyard) create the barriers which afford us some visual, if not acoustic, privacy. 

Our backyards aren’t huge, but they offer a great place to relax; most of them are big enough to accommodate a small pool or a nice little garden. Most of the lots are approximately 50 feet wide and average about 6,000 square feet. Almost every house in the neighborhood is only one story high. 

So imagine you've just bought your dream home, right here in this cute little neighborhood. It took every penny you had. But you've worked hard, you turned it into a beautiful home, and you’ve promised yourself that you are finally going to relax and lay out by the pool in your lovely backyard. 

A few months later, the property right behind you goes up for sale. And the guy who buys it is a developer. He tells you that he doesn’t have any intention of actually moving to your little neighborhood. His car, an Aston Martin, gives you an idea of where he calls home. 

He’s going use the property to generate rental income. His plan is to rent out the main property, and, thanks to ZA Memo 120, he's also going to rent out a second house which he plans to build in the backyard! It’s going to be two stories high with just as much square footage as the main house. 

The backyard isn’t very big, so he’s going to have to build as close to your back fence as the law allows. He tells you that he's got properties like this all over LA. 

This developer has started an LLC for the property, and between the two homes on a single lot, he will be generating $6,000 a month in rental income. He doesn’t care one bit about the fact that your ability to enjoy your yard (to say nothing of your property value) just went down as a result of his actions. 

He says: “This isn’t my first rodeo.” 

So, you take a moment. You try to process this: A large, two-story tall, very visible structure in the small backyard -- even though the very concept of a single family neighborhood means that this sort of thing isn't supposed to happen. 

But he gets the permit. And no one in the City even notifies you that this was happening. You live right next to the property, well within the 500-foot range. How is this possible? If there had been a particular time to voice your opinion on the matter, no one in the government told you when it was. 

You try to talk to your political representative in City Council. They keep calling it a “granny flat.” But it’s not a granny flat. It's huge. It’s a fully functioning second home, with its own house number, mailbox, and soon, a whole bunch of tenants. 

You do some research online. Even California’s Legislative Analyst has determined that this type of “urban infill” in single family home zones is not going to solve the affordable housing crisis. In fact, this type of new structure isn’t even going to make a dent in the affordable housing crisis, because there is no requirement to price it affordably. They’ll be renting at market rates. But the politicians keep throwing around the term “affordable housing” when they discuss this issue. Strange, isn't it? 

So this developer builds -- full steam ahead. The framing goes up. It’s big. And tall. And man, it’s close! You think, well, maybe we’ll get used to it. And then one day you come home to see the framing for the second story window: it looks right down onto your pool, your yard and into your bedroom! 

The building is so close to its own property line that the people living in it won’t be able to see their own yard from the window. But yours? Well, they’ll be thrilled that you've given them such a lovely view. Too bad that you can’t say the same about your new view. (See photo above.) 

This is how it happens. And because this unfair and previously illegal thing has happened to you, you decide to sell your dream home. And the winning bidder? Well, wouldn’t you know it -- a developer. If this process continues ad infinitum, say goodbye to the very notion of a single-family neighborhood. 

Wealthy developers will have a huge opportunity to make a lot of money for themselves if the SDU ordinance is repealed. They will be able to outbid the average homebuyer and will overdevelop every property they can get their hands on. 

I have read a few misinformed articles that frame this issue differently. The politicians who are in favor of the repeal of the SDU Ordinance are likely in the pockets of wealthy developers whose projects have been put on hold. These smart politicians are smart to hold actual, legitimate granny flats hostage: they know all too well that if you create a crisis that arouses public sympathy, you can exploit it. 

This is all about greed. It opens the door to rampant overdevelopment…not granny. 

Here’s what I’m hoping my City Councilmembers will do: 

Investigate the environmental impacts of any possible changes to zoning laws before they make those changes. For instance, more “urban infill” means more concrete, therefore less groundwater is absorbed, making both the drought and the flooding, due to the lack of storm drains in my neighborhood, even worse.

Discuss this issue with the public, and do it in a way that is intellectually honest. Don’t tie this repeal to the creation of affordable housing. And that includes you, Mr. Mayor! California’s Legislative Analyst's Office has determined that urban infill will not solve the affordable housing shortage in Los Angeles. In fact, the LAO has determined that this repeal won't even offer a small supply of "affordable" housing for another twenty-five years. Our politicians need to stop spinning this issue. It's unethical to confuse constituents into submission. We deserve better. 

Remember, this isn't about granny flats. While I strongly oppose the repeal, I support the public’s right to build granny flats that are appropriate for the size of one’s immediate community. We just need our politicians to create the right laws -- or common-sense amendments to existing regs -- to make that happen. 

Our politicians have a number of potential solutions that don’t involve repealing the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance, leaving us vulnerable to overdevelopment. They should do their due diligence and behave with integrity. If revisions to the Second Dwelling Unit ordinance are necessary, at the very least they must be considered with adequate public outreach. It is not in LA's best interest to discard our protective local standards.  

I repeat: the politicians have several options at their disposal. Those options should not include throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Please contact your LA City Councilmember before Wednesday, August 31 about this important issue. We need a lot more support because the developers have been lobbying the City Council hard for the past six months.

(Dannielle Langlois is film and television actress who lives in Van Nuys, next door to the above “second unit dwelling.”) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ANIMAL WATCH-Los Angeles Animal Services has issued a media release announcing, "Non-profit Law Firm Partners with Local Dog Rescue and LA Animal Services." It explained that the Inner City Law Center (ICLC), Downtown Dog Rescue (DDR) and Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) are launching an "easily accessible" Pet Resource Center on Skid Row. (No physical address was provided.) 

Here are some of the highlights of the program, which has very noble -- albeit idealistic -- goals: 

"Pets and homelessness are linked in many ways," we are told. “People living on the streets often rely on their pets for emotional support and companionship. Low-income families struggling to pay rent often also struggle to care for their beloved family pets." Thus, resources and services will be provided "to enable more people and their pets to stay housed. Fewer pets will enter the Los Angeles shelter system and fewer unwanted litters will be produced. 

“ICLC, DDR and LAAS want to make it known that no matter what a person's housing or financial situation there are ways [to] keep pets with their people.” 

This statement is a little unsettling because, although it does not directly say so, it implies this is always advisable. 

It is unclear what legal services Inner City Law Center will be providing to homeless pet owners -- but it is hoped there will be an emphasis on legal responsibilities of pet ownership, including public health and safety and humane care. The only description is that, “ICLC will provide space at its office on Skid Row.” (The Inner City Law Center website lists only one office at 1307 East Seventh Street.) 

The Pet Resource Center will be open one day per week and will be run by volunteers for Downtown Dog Rescue, a highly respected organization headed by Lori Weise, who has dedicated over 20 years to providing assistance -- with an emphasis on spay/neuter -- to the pets on Skid Row, in all downtown LA areas, and also in Compton. 

Here is the list of services offered by the Pet Resource Center: 

• Free spay/neuter vouchers
• Assistance with animal registration
• Vaccinations
• Microchips
• ID tags
• Collars
• Leashes
• Crates
• Access to emergency boarding and short-term foster care.
• Medical care at approved partner veterinarian clinics.
• Assistance with transportation to animal hospitals.
• Short-term motel stays for persons who do not have a permanent residence when their pet is      undergoing a non-outpatient medical procedure.
• Trained, volunteer counselors to provide the necessary services and offer support. 

This program will only reach a few of the thousands of homeless persons in LA with pets, but it promises tremendous benefits. 

It also poses important questions to residents and taxpayers of Los Angeles. 

Do you think homeless people should have dogs/pets? 

This question was posted recently on the Weddingbee.com site by a woman in NYC, who explained: 

“I don’t think homeless people should have dogs. I live in NYC, and there are a lot of homeless people, and a number of them have dogs. While most of their dogs are very well behaved, my dog and I got attacked by an unleashed pit bull owned by a homeless person. I sustained a bite. The homeless person didn’t have any vaccination records for the dog. Of course the dog didn’t have any rabies shot tag. He didn’t have a cell phone that we could reach him on. I asked the police to help us, but they said they couldn’t do anything. We called center for disease control and reported the incidence. I couldn’t give them any information about the dog, except for its name and the owner’s name, no known address. I had no health insurance at the time (working a contract job and not married), so I couldn’t afford the $10,000 rabies shot. The CDC told me that the dog had to be observed 10 days after the bite to make sure it didn’t know any symptoms of rabies, and if it didn’t, I would be fine. . . .What happened is probably an anomaly, but that’s the main reason why I don’t like seeing homeless people with dogs. What do you bees think about this?” 

Most responders felt that the value to the homeless person of having a pet far outweighed any occasional transgression that affected a human or another animal. 

However, most also had the opinion that the homeless owner is “saved” by the pet, that the pet has a great life of attention, is often “fed before its owner eats,” and/or that having a pet causes a homeless person to be more responsible because of he or she has someone to love. 

Is a dog/pet’s life with a homeless person humane? 

In his photo series, Skid Row Stories,” a vignette by John Huang describes a homeless woman whose life included tragic physical and emotional abuse since childhood. He wrote,“‘I thank God for everything,’” she told me as she shared her dog food with other Skid Row residents who couldn’t afford to feed their pets today. She leaned forward from her wheelchair and bent down to kiss her dog. 'I love animals,' she said. 'They're always there for you.'" 

He later added: “Update: I visited Cheryl to give her some supplies. Sadly I found out her dog was stolen. Part of the reality of being homeless.” 

Cheryl’s dog (a mid-size terrier) may have been stolen. Or, it may it have been left unleashed and unattended and wandered or run away. The presumption that it was stolen relieves her of any responsibility or guilt for the loss. Homeless people often have a series of dogs. 

One of the issues that MUST be addressed in any program involving the City issuing microchips and “registrations” for the homeless is that the dog is often someone’s lost pet which was found and not reported or taken to the shelter, as required by law, to be redeemed by a grieving owner. 

Will any pet discovered to have a prior microchip or license be impounded for the legal notification period (to allow transfer of title) before LAAS issues a new “registration” to the homeless person? 

Does anyone want to think of their lost pet tied in -- or to -- a shopping cart being pushed down a trash-filled street by someone who may be unable to care for him/herself? 

Los Angeles Almanac reports that in 2015 the homeless demographic in the City of Los Angeles showed the following characteristics:

(Source: Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority]

Will the Inner City Law Center's attorneys assure that animals whose legal ownership is being given to a homeless person through their program receives the same standard of treatment required of other pet owners?

If the homeless pet owner neglects the animal, abuses it or beats it during a fit of rage, will ICLC take action to have the helpless creature removed and the owner prosecuted or banned from having another animal? Or, will their duty be to the person who was 'temporarily out of control' and should be allowed to keep his/her pet? 

An LA Times article, “Hounding a Homeless Man into Giving up his Dogs,” portrayed the 2014 struggle by compassionate and concerned animal rescuers to have a Pit Bull and her ten puppies removed from a homeless man, Gerrick Williams, who was keeping them in a cardboard box on the sidewalk.

Even though City officials were inundated with emails alleging that Miller was operating a puppy mill for profit, General Manager Brenda Barnette said LAAS could not seize the dog and her 10 puppies because they were not “illegal.” 

A few days after agreeing to allow the shelter to temporarily hold the dogs for him, Miller was arrested on a drug possession charge and sentenced to a year in a rehabilitation program. He told the Times reporter by phone, "This is a lot better than the streets." 

A shelter employee described the mother Pit Bull as “shy and her belly and teats sagging from having litters.” 

"If people are struggling, homeless and have addictions, another responsibility is not appropriate," Whitney Hope Smith, a rescuer who videotaped Miller's camp, told the Times. "It's very easy to give a sob story for homeless, but the endgame for the animals isn't pretty." 

What Do You Think? 

There is no question it is good to have spay/neuter, vaccinations, micro-chipping and licensing easily available for pets of the homeless. But how will these voiceless animals be protected, if necessary, from the actions or inactions of those who are mentally unstable, irresponsible or cruel after they are granted legal possession by the City and their whereabouts is unknown? 

Another serious concern is who would be held liable if dogs the City assists in placing and "registering" with the homeless attack, injure or kill other animals or a human?

Important basic questions that have not been debated by the public are whether the homeless should be held to the same or lesser standards of care and responsibility for pets, and who will speak for these animals’ legal rights to safety and humane treatment?

(Animal activist Phyllis M. Daugherty writes for CityWatch and is a contributing writer to opposingviews.com.  She lives in Los Angeles.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

VOX POP--The Coalition to Preserve LA announced Wednesday that the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative is heading for the March 2017 ballot, marking an unprecedented push by residents to take control from for-profit developers who are wielding far too much power over what Los Angeles becomes.

Backers of the citizen initiative today delivered just shy of 104,000 signatures to Los Angeles City Hall, nearly double the number required, and predicted that their measure will easily qualify for the ballot.

At a press conference in South Los Angeles at the site of the illegally approved mega-development known as the Cumulus Skyscraper, residents of Baldwin Hills, West Adams and nearby areas condemned City Hall’s rigged development system.

Dove Pinkney, a member of the Crenshaw Subway Coalition and the longstanding New Frontier Democratic Club, said of Cumulus, “The community should not be overwhelmed by people who are just in it for the money.” Veteran Los Angeles Sentinel columnist Larry Aubry warned, “There’s a corporate takeover of Los Angeles,” underway by developers. Aubry said that City Hall’s rigged system is hurting residents not just in South L.A., but citywide.

Damien Goodmon, a key supporter of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative and executive director of the Crenshaw Subway Coalition, said, “Development should be for us. Development should not displace us. Folk are getting pushed out because the City Council is busy building luxury housing.”

The March 2017 measure directly targets the City Council’s failure to plan for the city’s infrastructure, parks, and housing needs, and its severe bending of the rules to approve mega-developments that overwhelm local streets and destroy neighborhood character.

The Council’s failure to create and follow a modern “General Plan” common in well-run cities, and the City Council’s back-room dealmaking with wealthy luxury housing developers, have led to widespread destruction of affordable housing — while creating a massive luxury housing glut in Los Angeles.

According to the city Housing Department’s own data, L.A. has a staggering 15% to 20% vacancy rate in the thousands of luxury units built in the past 10 years. Yet overall rental vacancy rates are just 2.7%, and even people with good jobs can’t afford a place to live.

The City Council and city planners have allowed the demolition or conversion to condos of 22,000 affordable housing units since 2000, the city’s data show, much of it standing in the way of luxury housing developments. The real estate industry has showered the City Council and mayor with money — including $6 million in campaign contributions since 2000.

Each of the lost 22,000 affordable units would cost $300,000 to $450,000 to replace, leaving L.A. unable to catch up.

Opal Young, a member of the Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw Homeowners Coalition, said of the planned Cumulus skyscraper, which does not include any affordable housing, “The building that is proposed to be built totally overwhelms the community.” It would soar 320 feet in a neighborhood of single-story homes and two- to four-story businesses and apartments. The skyscraper would be surrounded by a fortress-like complex of 10-story luxury office towers.

Nearby resident Nadine Angele said that allowing developers to radically alter a community’s character is no way to create a livable city. Angele said the Los Angeles City Council and mayor hold “a trusted position. They should be ashamed for approving a 320-foot tower. It’s going to push local diversity out.”

Darren Starks, president of the Baldwin Neighborhood Homeowners Association, and Clint Simmons, a member of Expo Communities United, both touched on the massive gridlock the skyscraper will bring to already overwhelmed streets including La Cienega, Venice, Jefferson and Washington boulevards.

Yet, Starks said, “When this project was initiated, we residents were never contacted.” Simmons, an engineer, slammed the project as “a community wrecker” filled with luxury housing — some place the future rents at $4,000 per unit — not intended for people in the community.

Residents from other parts of Los Angeles spoke in solidarity with local residents, including Luis Saldivar, a member of the Hollywood United Neighborhood Council.

Saldivar said, “We’re displacing people in Los Angeles [ranging] from South Central to the San Fernando Valley. You need to plan before you build. You can’t build, build, build.”

The Neighborhood Integrity Initiative has attracted donations from more than 200 small givers citywide averaging about $25 each, as well as $20,000 from former Mayor Richard Riordan, who calls the current City Hall planning system “a train wreck.” The organized opposition to the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, led by the Chamber of Commerce, has attracted a handful of donors — two of them billionaire developers.

About 30 of the measure’s supporters last week met with Mayor Eric Garcetti to provide him an opportunity to announce his own long-promised reforms of the broken system at City Hall.

Jill Stewart, campaign director for the Coalition to Preserve LA, said Wednesday, “We appreciated the meeting with the mayor, but since April, Mayor Garcetti has not announced any notable reforms that would alter the Wild West system that’s destroying neighborhood character, displacing thousands of people, and wiping out precious older affordable housing.”

The March ballot measure requires the City Council to immediately begin writing a “General Plan,” and to include the communities in creating 35 Community Plans that address and create a plan for the city’s aging infrastructure, overtaxed safety services, sewers, water supplies, parks and housing needs. It would ban developers from choosing the consultants who write the Environmental Impact Reports for their own proposed projects, an obvious conflict of interest. The measure would place a two-year timeout on City Council back-room deals that let a small cadre of developers get around the rules.

(Patrick Range McDonald writes for the Coalition to Preserve LA)

-cw

Join our citywide, grassroots movement by clicking here right now to donate any amount you wish, and follow and cheer our efforts on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. You can also send us an email at [email protected] for more information.

CORRUPTION WATCH-Los Angeles has significantly more people leave each year than move here. We now know who is leaving the City – the Millennials starting families. Los Angeles has become a city to avoid as we are #60 on places where the professional and business service class want to live. That attitude holds true for all the middle class. Some older middle class citizens are stuck in LA since they bought their homes decades ago and their children are finished school. However, the Millennials who are deciding to start a family are moving away in droves. 

When tens of thousands more people leave the City than chose to come here, the supply of vacant housing increases. For several years, Los Angeles has seen its vacancy rate climb, except for one segment – rent controlled housing. Mayor Eric Garcetti has been tearing down poor people’s homes with a vengeance, swelling the ranks of the homeless. 

How does Garcetti get away with both the massive destruction of poor people’s homes and the construction of luxury units which show an ever increasing vacancy rate? Building more luxury units in Los Angeles is like stocking a kosher butcher shop with pigs’ feet. You know something isn’t right. 

Why would the kosher shop load up on pork products, when no one is buying them? And why is Los Angeles constructing more luxury condos and single family homes which are eight inches apart? Yes, I said eight inches! 

The answer to both questions is the same – the butcher shop no longer cares about being kosher and is catering to a different clientele; so too with the City of Los Angeles. Its housing policies have nothing to do with the housing desires or needs of Angelenos. 

Corruption Destroys 

While power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolute, “corruptionism” destroys. With the blessings of the courts and law enforcement, the Los Angeles City Council has become a bona fide criminal enterprise. I do not mean this metaphorically; I mean it literally. The Los Angeles City Council is a criminal enterprise. 

I do not suggest that it caters to criminals, nor do I merely imply that councilmembers are crooks. I mean that the City Council itself is The Criminal Enterprise. In the olden days of Al Capone and Elliot Ness, Chicago had corrupt judges and a plethora of city officials on the take. In Los Angeles, however, the City Council itself operates according to Mutual Bribery. 

The term Mutual Bribery is used because the State of California amended Penal Code § 86 in 2006 to forbid any councilmember to trade his or her vote in return for a vote by another councilmember. Penal Code § 86 is one of the California’s anti-bribery statutes. In the Los Angeles City Council, Mutual Bribery operates very efficiently. Each councilmember agrees to never vote No on a construction project in another council district. The reciprocal nature of their agreement is why it is called Mutual Bribery. 

The Los Angeles City Council unanimously approves each construction project in the City 99.9% of the time. The courts see nothing wrong with this practice. The likelihood that this unanimous voting occurs “by chance” is less than one in one thousand billion, billion, billion. I think the number is written 1/1,000 followed by 18 zeros. Yes, ten years of unanimous voting is merely a statistical coincidence! 

But what is wrong with the system? After all, it is very efficient. All a developer needs to do to have his project unanimously approved is to have a kindly councilmember place it on the City Council agenda. It will be unanimously approved. And here’s the great part of the Los Angeles City Council: even if not a single councilmember actually votes for the project, it gets unanimous approval. 

Gee whiz, what could go wrong with a system in which a developer is guaranteed his project, no matter how many laws it violates and will get unanimous approval -- even if not a single councilmember leans forward to press his Yes button? The City Council has rigged its vote tabulator so the machine automatically votes “Yes” – a quirky reflection of the corruption at City Council. So let’s look at the impact of corruptionism. 

Ramifications of City Council’s Mutual Bribery 

When a city retains a construction company to build something, it is supposed to use competitive bidding. When the developer is chosen in secret with zero public oversight, there is great potential for pay offs, bribes, shoddy construction, skimming, etc. The unanimous vote trading at City Council allows a single councilmember to meet in private with a developer to construct whatever he wants, and then the City is compelled to pay for a substantial portion of the project. 

For example, look at Grand Ave Project across from Eli Broad’s Museum in DTLA. The City Council unanimously voted to give the developer $198 million. Where was the competitive bidding to see if this developer was the best one for the job? There was none. There never is any. 

Look at 5929 Sunset where the City gave the developer over $17 million. Was there any competitive bid to see if this developer was the best one for the project? Nope. 

Unanimous voting in City Council is habitually used to circumvent the requirement that all City- sponsored projects are subject to competitive bidding. Instead, one councilmember and one developer make a secret deal, and then, after that, the City Council unanimously approves millions of dollars for that project. CIM Midtown in Council President Herb Wesson’s CD 10 reportedly got $42 million plus all the sale taxes earned by retailers at the project site. 

Across LA, we see the City as “co-sponsor” of project after project based upon secret deals between one councilmember and one developer. Never is there any competitive bidding. That’s because the developer is selected before the city money is donated. 

As a result, billions of tax dollars are funneled to developers who are destroying LA neighborhoods and looting the public treasury with zero oversight. The courts see nothing wrong with this system. 

But wait, it gets worse! 

The construction mania continues and City Hall is in a panic over the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative [NII]. Why is that? As everyone knows, the middle class is deserting Los Angeles. There is an increasing glut of these luxury condos and yet the City wants to construct more and more of them. Yes, that brings us back to: why would a kosher butcher shop stock pigs’ feet? 

There Are a Couple Scams 

(1) The City will borrow the money and give it to the developers, who then will bankrupt their LLCs and LLPs, leaving the City’s taxpayers to repay Wall Street. The tax dollars that flow to Wall Street will then not be available to pay for our infrastructure improvements. The decaying infrastructure will then cause more businesses and more of the middle class to flee the City. None of that matters as long as the developers can siphon off hundreds of millions of tax dollars. 

(2) The newest angle is money laundering. Since Putin has made moving money out of the Russia illegal, the desire of Russians to move money to other countries has naturally increased. (Putin does not understand that his own massive corruptionism is the major reason so many Russians are devising schemes to get their cash out of their country. 

In order to cut down on not only Russians but also Chinese who are looking to stash their money overseas, the United States has a new rule requiring the reporting of real estate investments by foreigners. More specifically, in Manhattan and Miami-Dade real estate transactions of more than $3 million in NY and more than $1 million in Miami have to be reported. The purpose is to stop money laundering not only by Russian oligarchs but also by drug traffickers, Blood Diamond traders, weapons dealers and a host of other international criminals. 

So far, Los Angeles is not on the list of locales where reporting is required. Thus, some thug who made his money by the child labor and mutilations in Central Africa can still secretly buy up Los Angeles condos and small lot subdivisions (the new single family homes separated by 8 inches.) LA developers do not care who buys their units.  

Looking ahead, one can anticipate the Feds placing the same reporting requirements on LLCs and LLPs in Los Angeles real estate market and this is why condos and small lot subdivisions are so important. If a Russian oligarch buys a 12-unit apartment house for $10 million, his identity cannot be kept secret. But if he buys 12 condos or 12 small lot subdivisions, each one will be less than the reporting requirement. Secrecy is very important, especially if you’re hiding your money from Vladimir Putin. 

Why the Los Angeles Power Structure Circles the Wagons to Protect the Mutual Bribery at City Council 

We see why the entire Los Angeles power structure does not want anything to interfere with the Mutual Bribery running City Council. It is an extremely efficient system to get in on the international money laundering craze. In a year or two, it will probably be some other criminal venture that will become all the rage. 

With Mutual Bribery, there is never any disclosure of who is paying whom and how much is being paid. Each councilmember is the petty dictator in his or her district. All we Angelenos know is that our infrastructure has decayed, our taxes are increasing and our quality of life is deteriorating.

(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Abrams views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

Tags: