GUEST COMMENTARY--Last week, a federal judge ended a years-long tug of war when it ruled that Los Angeles County must remove a religious cross from its county seal.

Though religion has been an important part of Los Angeles’ history, the decision allows the Los Angeles County to present itself as an unbiased government that values no religion over others.

The ruling concludes a lawsuit that claimed the addition of a cross on top of the San Gabriel Mission in Los Angeles County’s seal was unconstitutional. Los Angeles County supervisors voted to add the cross to the seal in 2014 despite imminent legal action.

Though it may go unnoticed by many, the images that appear on the county seal are not trivial. Anyone working with the Los Angeles County should be able to expect a religion-neutral environment. Because the seal appears on many official documents and forms, anyone working on current official county paperwork has to do so on a document adorned with a Christian symbol. It’s not hard to imagine how this could be perceived as bias.

While some may argue the cross belongs on the seal as a matter of visual accuracy – it was recently restored after being lost for a time – the seal’s purpose as a symbol of Los Angeles doesn’t necessitate accuracy. In fact, many elements of the seal are inaccurate.

Still, there are legitimate reasons some may want the mission on the seal to bear the cross. Religion is more than just a belief system; it is tied deeply to culture and is an integral component of history. Everything, from art to systems of government, is impossible to study through a lens that omits reference to religion. Therefore, symbols like the Christian cross atop the San Gabriel Mission have a local cultural meaning that extends beyond a general representation of Christianity.

The Los Angeles County has a duty to acknowledge its cultural history, which includes the San Gabriel Mission that played a crucial role in the development of Southern California. The acknowledgement of this history cannot be separated from Christianity, so it is understandable that some would argue for the inclusion of the cross on the mission.

However, the first and most important task of the county will always be to serve and protect its current constituents, and that constituency is more diverse than ever. To make good on this duty, the county must do what it can to respect all of the various belief systems without giving approval to some over others.

Having the San Gabriel Mission on the Los Angeles County seal but omitting its cross strikes a fair balance between acknowledging the county’s religious cultural history and creating a nondiscriminatory environment.

(This editorial appeared last week in the Daily Bruin. It reflects the view of the Daily Bruin Editorial Board.)

-cw

VOICES-Apparently some believe that AB 2806 would "significantly weaken the investigative powers of LAUSD's Office of the Inspector General and reduce their ability to uncover charter school fraud, corruption, and waste.” To that I say, bravo! (Photo above: Cheryl Dorsey guesting on the Dr. Phil TV program.)

The last thing that the LAUSD's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) needs is more power. The OIG has been yielding tremendous power; retaliating and investigating me since I went public with my whistle-blower blog in February 2016.

As a retired twenty-year veteran sergeant of the Los Angeles Police Department, I know firsthand what it means to take on a super power like the LAUSD. This is not my first rodeo. I will not be bullied nor silenced.

Ironically, this started when I reported on what I believe to be potentially criminal activity at best or administratively inappropriate activity at least, to then superintendent Cortines, in the presence of Michelle King. I wrongly assumed he would be outraged.

I advised the superintendent that the Office of the Inspector General's "unholy trinity" -- also known as Inspector General Ken Bramlett, Deputy Inspector General Frank Cabibi and Supervisory Investigator Jorge Urquijo -- have been playing a game with Charter Schools Division, Facilities Services Division and the Bond Oversight Committee regarding their requested investigations  to "uncover school fraud, corruption, and waste.”

During a September 2015 meeting with Cortines and King, I posed the question, "How does one investigate fraud, waste and abuse when one is committing fraud waste and abuse?" The bullying and retaliation was swift and has been unrelenting.

On January 12, 2016, I was informed in a written letter from Inspector General Ken Bramlett that the Office of the Inspector General had a problem with "...the effect my conduct is having on staff and management..." That's when the forced resignation treatment began. Yes, to AB 2806!

On February 24, 2016, I reminded now Superintendent Michelle King via email about that September 2015 meeting, that what I believe is ongoing is malfeasance, tax payer and payroll fraud; I also told her of my desire for an investigation into my complaint of retaliation and bullying by the OIG. The Office of the Inspector General is attempting to force my resignation under the threat of "disciplinary action which could lead to termination.”   Yes, to AB 2806!

On February 25, 2016, in response to my email to Ms. King, I received a written response from Lynn Ibara, LAUSD Associate General Counsel, directing me to "discuss" this matter with someone other than Ms. King and that "the District is aware of your correspondence and will work toward a resolution of the issues [you] presented.”

Well, what Ms. Ibara didn't say in her response is that the "resolution" would involve my forced resignation. I didn't understand at the time that "working toward a resolution" was code talk for the fact that the Office of the Inspector General, Office of General Counsel and Staff Relations would now be coming for me. Yes, on AB 2806!

On March 1, 2016, I received a "Notice of Unsatisfactory Service" from Staff Relations Manager Melinda LeDuff Menefee, Frank Cabibi and Jorge Urquijo. There were a litany of "charges,” albeit unsubstantiated, leveled against me; however, Cabibi recommended, "No Disciplinary Action" in this notice.

I found Cabibi's "recommendation" to be remarkable since several of the charges that the Office of the Inspector General alleged reported I had been found guilty of "fraud" and "falsifying documents,” yet Cabibi decided not to discipline me on these seemingly serious administrative charges. How could staff relations find me guilty (without an investigation) and Frank Cabibi not discipline me on the charges?

Please explain how staff relations manager Ms. Menefee could charge and sustain allegations of fraud against me without a proper investigation…which should have included my interview? Power, that's how. Yes, on AB 2806!

Ms. Menefee's investigation appears to mirror that of Cheryl Broussard, Employee Opportunity Section, Office of General Counsel, when I alleged discrimination, retaliation and disparate treatment based on my ethnicity. That is, take whole cloth statements made by the unholy trinity (Bramlett, Cabibi, Urquijo) as truth; require no documented evidence to substantiate the statement and neglect to provide me, the employee, an opportunity to refute allegations with my own documented evidence. This is power. Yes, on AB 2806!

This, however, is not what I have come to know as an "investigation" based on my twenty years as a police officer/sergeant.

The Los Angeles Unified School District continues to circle the wagons. The Office of the Inspector General puts forth an uncontested version of alleged "employee misconduct" and it is adopted as truth -- so more power is the last thing this office should be granted. Yes, on AB 2806!

I wonder what it will take for taxpayers and parents of LAUSD students and other District employees who have been mistreated as I have, suffered emotional harm, loss wages, been bullied into resignation (as they are trying to do to me) to wake up and compel a real investigative agency to look inside the Office of the Inspector General at LAUSD. Apparently, bullying District employees into resignation in the midst of an administrative hearing is typical of them. Yes, on AB 2806!

On March 1, 2016, I received an unsolicited "Settlement Offer" from Kathleen Collins, Chief Administrative Law and Litigation Counsel, Los Angeles Unified School District, Office of General Counsel, which demanded my resignation. This "Offer" if agreed upon, would also require that I "cease making or causing to be made any statements public or private that disparage the District, the OIG, or individual employees of the District or of the OIG.

Apparently, the all powerful OIG and District will "allow" me to resign in "lieu of proceeding with discipline. Now, that kinda sounds like a veiled threat. Why is the Office of the Inspector General trying to silence me under the threat of "discipline that could lead to termination”? Because the Office of the Inspector General has power. I feel as if Ken Bramlett, Frank Cabibi and Jorge Urquijo have been plowing over me with impunity since June of 2015. And now, they want me to "cease making public statements disparaging the OIG or individual employees." When did truth become disparaging?

Understand, I have been a District employee for ten years and have never been the subject of any negative discipline -- that is, until Cabibi and Urquijo (who were both only recently hired in April 2014) placed a manufactured "Notice of Unsatisfactory Service" letter in my personnel file on March 1st.

I will not be quiet.

When I discovered that the Office of the Inspector General was seeking more power and more authority to bully, mistreat, and retaliate against me with impunity under the guise of an "investigation" I felt compelled to say, "hell no.”

Those connected to Charter Schools under the purview of the LAUSD who are familiar with and in support of AB2806 probably already know that the OIG does not deserve more power -- you just didn't know why

That's where I come in.

The Superintendent, president of the LAUSD Board of Education and Director of the Office of General Counsel are seemingly steadfast in their unwillingness to investigate malfeasance and corruption occurring in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). They have ignored my complaints and refused to intervene and stop the Office of the Inspector General administrators from their unrelenting retaliation campaign against me as a whistleblower.

And the staff relations manager in HR has joined the campaign to force my resignation. They already have too much power. I am just one person taking on the LAUSD machine -- the Superintendent, Office of General Counsel, and Office of the Inspector General, Staff Relations. While they may chew me up, they won't be able to spit me out. Not quietly anyway.

It is my hope that California Speaker of the Assembly Anthony Rendon and California Assembly Members Scott Wilk and Matt Debabneh will not expand the authority and reach of an already out of control LAUSD Office of the Inspector General when this bill comes to the house floor for a vote. Yes, on AB 2806!

I will end this blog as I do in every article, attesting to abuse of authority by an unholy trinity. Should I befall any hurt, harm or danger, I am requesting my friends and family to begin their investigation at the steps of the Los Angeles Unified School District – and more importantly, in the Office of the Inspector General, Investigations.

(Cheryl Dorsey is a retired LAPD sergeant, speaker, and much sought after police expert on important issues making national headlines; as such she has appeared as a guest expert on the Dr. Phil Show ,  and is a frequent commentator on CNN, Dr. Drew,  HLN,  MSNBC and KPCC. She is the author of The Creation of a Manifesto, Black & Blue; an autobiography that pulls the covers of the LAPD and provides an unfiltered look into the department’s internal processes. Visit Cheryl’s website www.cheryldorsey.net., listen to her on Soundcloud  follow on Twitter @sgtcheryldorsey  and BlackandBlueNews) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

GELFAND’S WORLD--Long Beach Opera started the season in a regular theater, then moved to a National Guard Armory for its second production, and now is performing in the basement of the Federal Bar in Long Beach. One local wag, when informed of these wanderings, referred to LBO as the Found Space Opera. There is a bit of truth to this, in that LBO has a penchant for finding an unusual place to fit the show rather than trying to fit the show to the home arena. In the case of Poulenc's La Voix Humaine -- The Human Voice -- the tiny performance space in the basement of what was previously a bank puts the action and sonic intensity right in our faces, mere feet away, and thereby manages to drive some serious emotional impact.

I must confess that I approached this performance with some trepidation, as I had seen La Voix Humaine at the Chicago Lyric Opera back in the 1980s, and it didn't connect with me. After all, this opera features a lone performer who sings into a telephone for the duration of the piece. In the cavernous spaces of the Chicago opera house, the performance lacked drama and emotional connection. But this week things were different. Performed up close and with emotional intensity, this opera is a completely different organism.

In Long Beach this week and next, Suzan Hanson adds that something to the performance that brings it alive, and that something is acting ability to add to vocal power. In this case, acting ability involves not just expression and movement. It involves the use of the voice to convey nuances of emotion and situation.

So what is La Voix Humaine, and why did it work so well for LBO?

The opera was crafted by Francis Poulenc in the 1950s, based on a 1930 play by Jean Cocteau. A woman is alone in her room, waiting for the telephone to ring. There are a couple of wrong numbers, but finally her now-former lover rings in. We've been told in advance that her ex is going to marry someone else, but we don't know much of anything beyond that.

The opera consists of the woman communicating through multiple telephone conversations. We are allowed to figure things out bit by bit through hearing her side -- but only her side -- of the conversations. We find out one critical thing fairly early in the performance, when the performer learns that her ex-lover will be marrying the next day. The woman, who is referred to in the opera only as Elle (in other words Her), reacts in various ways, at some times putting on a brave front, other times being flirtatious, but gradually crumbling. She admits to a previous suicide attempt, and then pretends to be talked down from the emotional edge.

In a way, this story is the mirror image of all those shows in which some brave cop or fireman is trying to talk down a suicidal person. La Voix Humaine provides us the other side of the story -- we are placed in the mind of the suicidal person rather than the rescuer. It's a curious inversion, because those tv shows usually start by making the audience irritated at the suicidal character -- why can't she behave herself and get down off the ledge, or put down the gun? This opera presents us with the opposite point of view. We begin to empathize with her as we begin to feel her pain.

Suzan Hanson has been singing with LBO for a decade and a half at this point, and as a dramatic actress, this may be her performance to remember.

On a secondary note, this opera fits in with a century old tradition that historians of cinema and drama have been commenting on for several decades, namely the telephone drama. Americans are familiar with the comedy of Bob Newhart, featuring the one-sided phone conversation as a plot gimmick. But the telephone as a major plot point is actually more than a century old. Cinema historian Eileen Bowser, former curator at the Museum of Modern Art, explained how early cinema used the evolving technology of the day. It was what Bowser refers to as the telephone thriller, which developed in the early 1900s. The telephone was fairly new at the time, and provided a cinematic way of connecting characters to each other on screen while showing them as separated by distance. It's a way of adding dramatic tension to a situation, because the audience can be kept in ignorance about one side or the other as the storyline develops.

La Voix Humaine takes the idea a step further by presenting that one side of the conversation live, right in front of the audience, and by gradually developing the heroine's distress. At first she puts on a brave front not only to the audience but to her distant telephonic companion. As the minutes go by, she allows herself to feel things more and more directly, until she finally allows herself to succumb to unbearable anguish -- and with great musical expressiveness.

One of the strong points of this production is the intimate relationship of the playing area to the audience. There can't be much more than a hundred or so seats in the room, so it's a dramatic connection that is akin to seeing a powerful play close up. This is both benefit and problem, because there are only four performances remaining, and half of them are already sold out.

By the way, the opera's storyline includes the technical glitches characteristic of telephone service in a bygone era. There are lost connections and something that the modern generation is thankfully ignorant of, the problem of interruptions on a party line. But these are all too real to Elle, who answers the ringing of the phone with her plaintive, "Hello, hello!" In the LBO presentation, the two words signal us that we are about to be presented with more clues to what has happened and will happen in one woman's doomed and lonely life.

LBO chose to present La Voix Humaine in English translation rather than in the original French. At one level, this takes away something, but only if you are fluent in French. Cocteau was interested in exploring the human voice, as the title implies. In the current production, LBO chooses to make the emotional connection by using understandable language -- and with terrific diction by Hanson. This was the right choice.

LBO opened the evening with a series of short pieces by Satie, including narration, presented to fine comic effect by Robin Buck.

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

-cw

ANIMAL WATCH-Have you been the victim of a dog attack or witnessed a dog attacking a person or animal in Los Angeles and were unable to reach Animal Services or were told that no officer was available to promptly respond? 

Does LA Animal Services adequately address complaints about menacing dogs turned loose by owners to threaten pets and people in your community?

Is your neighborhood plagued by strays or abandoned animals that have been reported to LAAS but not picked up?

Are you alarmed that coyotes have entered your well-fenced yard or are roaming your neighborhood, snatching beloved pets and frightening children and adults?

Are roosters or barking dogs disturbing your sleep and quiet enjoyment of your home? 

Do you suspect someone is abusing an animal or hoarding animals but you don’t know how -- -or are afraid -- to report it? 

Have you called LAAS at night about a dog or cat hit by a car or injured wildlife and been told there are only two Animal Control Officers available for the entire city?

Or, maybe you have had a great experience with LA Animal Services' field staff and were impressed by their professionalism, compassion, and competence and how quickly an officer arrived. 

Do you receive prompt, friendly service and accurate advice when you contact a city shelter? Do you love how the adoption of a pet was handled? 

Do city shelters provide a variety of animals that would make you return again to adopt?

Are you convinced and comforted by claims that LA is “almost no-kill”? 

Well, here’s your chance to tell Brenda Barnette about any or all of the above! 

Critics and supporters of Brenda Barnette’s tenure as General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) -- -and all stakeholders in the city -- -are now promised an opportunity for their ideas, suggestions, and complaints to influence the future of animals and people in Los Angeles (whether or not they are pet owners.)

At a retreat in January, Animal Services Commissioners, LAAS staff and a representative from the Mayor’s office exchanged ideas about a shared vision for the future, GM Barnette announced at the last Commission meeting.

“We are working together to create a Strategic Plan for LA Animal Services that encompasses the Mayor’s initiatives and valuable input from the community to help shape our goals and priorities for the next three to five years.

“We all agreed this means learning how the community perceives the Department -- what they feel they need and what they expect from us . . . and, we want to engage as much of the community as possible,” she said in a personal interview.

To accomplish this, evening community meetings are scheduled in each of the 15 Council Districts (see below).

If you can’t attend a meeting (or if you attend and also want your opinions to be included in the online survey results), here’s the survey link:  bit.ly/LAAS-Survey.  Participants must live in the city of Los Angeles or be business owners or employees of a business in LA.

Professional consultant and facilitator for the Strategic Plan meetings, Francisca Gonzales Baxa, emphasized, “The goal is to obtain the community’s input and best ideas to help LAAS promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of animals and people.”

The draft Strategic Plan will be compiled from public input and presented to the Commission for consideration and modification before it is adopted for the Department. That meeting is another opportunity for public comment.

Here is the message Brenda Barnette said she would like to share with Angelenos:

“The Mayor and his staff have been very supportive of this process. After we held the retreat and started talking about having a strategic-planning process, developing a strategic plan for the Department became one of my priority performance goals. 

“ want to hear from people who don’t have pets, those who are afraid of dogs, those who need help sharing their neighborhood with wildlife and those who encounter animal cruelty and illegal animal activities but don’t know how to report what they have seen.

“I want to work with the community to create a Department that is balanced and one that meets the needs of the entire community.” 

Whether this process will result in a valid, viable plan for a well-staffed Animal Services department that fulfills its public safety mandate and addresses the serious and dangerous issues of dog attacks, animal (domestic and wildlife) abuse, illegal animal fighting, abandonment and neglect -- with vigorous criminal prosecution -- will not be known until it is devised and implemented.

But for a very small investment of time and effort, everyone in Los Angeles can and should participate. Skepticism or complacency must be put aside because this plan will be formulated with or without broad public input and directly affects everyone's personal safety (human and animal).

Remember, failure to contribute abdicates the right to future dissent.

Here's the current schedule for Strategic Plan meetings:

Wednesday, April 13, 2016, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Council District 7, Pacoima City Hall, Media Room
13520 Van Nuys Blvd., Pacoima, CA 91331

Monday, April 18, 2016, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Council District 6, Marvin Braude Bldg., Rm 1A & 1B
6262 Van Nuys Blvd.,Van Nuys, CA 91401

Tuesday, April 19, 2016, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Council District 5, Encino Community Center
4935 Balboa Blvd., Encino, CA 91316

Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Councilmember Blumenfield’s
District Office Community Room
19040 Vanowen St., Reseda, CA 91335

Wednesday, April 27, 2016, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Council District 12, Community Service Center
9207 Oakdale Ave., Suite 200, Chatsworth, CA 91311

Thursday, April 28, 2016, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Council District 13, Sandra Cisneros Campus
1018 Mohawk Street, Los Angeles, CA 90026

Tuesday, May 3, 2016, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Council District 4, Hollywood Field Office
6501 Fountain Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90028

Wednesday, May 4, 2016, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Council District 2, Studio City Recreation Center
12621 Rye St., Studio City, CA 91604

Tuesday, May 10, 2016, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Council District 14 Field Office, Community Room
2130 E. 1st Street, Suite 241, Los Angeles, CA 90033

Wednesday, May 11, 2016, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Council District 10, District Office
1819 South Western Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90066

Tuesday, May 17, 2016, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Council District 8, District Office, Community Room
8475 S. Vermont Ave., Los Angeles, CA 9004

More info @ http://www.laanimalservices.com/community/

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

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW--Formerly the second in command at the LA County Sheriff’s Department, Paul Tanaka, now faces up to 15 years in federal prison for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Tanaka was convicted on Wednesday on charges he tried to squash an FBI investigation of the country’s largest urban jail system.

During the two-week trial, Tanaka pointed his finger at retired Sheriff Lee Baca as the mastermind behind the plan. Baca, who previously pleaded guilty to a single felony charge as part of a plea deal, is facing a six-month prison sentence for lying to federal investigators that he was unaware that his deputies had threatened an FBI agent in 2011. The agent had been investigating allegations of corruption and civil rights violations against inmates.

According to prosecutors, the scandal hinges at least in part from the efforts of Tanaka and Baca to hide an inmate informant from the FBI in connection with an investigation into brutality and civil rights violations against inmates. Unlike cases that may involve a single or a handful of rogue cops, this conviction for a jail and obstruction scandal … reached all the way to the top echelons of the Sheriff’s Department,” wrote Joel Rubin of the LA Times.

Tanaka quickly rose through the ranks of the Sheriff’s Department and had a reputation as a tough and domineering leader. Prior to his retirement in 2013, he ran the day-to-day operations of the department and had even more power than Sheriff Baca, whom Tanaka attempted to hide behind to excuse his actions through his “but he made me do it” testimony on the stand.

The conviction will likely be appealed. To date, nine members of the Sheriff’s Department have either accepted plea agreements or been convicted in connection with the scandal.

Tanaka’s conviction and Baca’s plea are a move in the right direction. Hector Villagra, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California notes, “This trial is not about one individual, or an isolated incident of obstruction of justice by a law enforcement official. Rather, this case is about a culture of lawlessness and violence within the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department that went unchecked if not abetted by the top brass.”

Villagra adds that the conviction is “one more important step in the process of effecting much needed reform, a process that includes federal prosecutions… and implementation of the reforms proposed by the Citizens Commission on Jail Violence. This trial and the plea by former Sheriff Lee Baca are important reminders that no one is above the law and those individuals entrusted to uphold the law must also obey it.”’

Tanaka’s sentencing has been set for June 20.

(Beth Cone Kramer is a successful Los Angeles writer and a columnist for CityWatch.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

PUMP POLITICS--Transportation funding in California has, as SBCA readers must know by now, reached a “crisis.” Shrinking gas tax revenues, combined with an increasing reliance on local sales taxes limited to specific transportation projects, have left our overbuilt and under-maintained highways, roads, and bridges without enough funds to keep them in a basic state of good repair.

Last year the need for a solution was so urgent that Governor Brown called a “special legislative session” on transportation funding, but the process so far has produced little. Some legislators proposed “bold” funding ideas, including raising the gas tax. Increasing the gas tax is long overdue, but meets such knee-jerk opposition that just bringing up the subject counts as a bold action. A lack of focus, and an inability to come to an agreement about how to “fix” what is a royal mess, means that so far no solution is forthcoming.

Meanwhile the yearly state budget process is underway again, with hearings to begin in earnest in the next few weeks. Governor Jerry Brown made his budget proposal in January, and will issue a “May revise” after tax day when state revenues are clearer.

In addition to the state budget, legislators are deciding how to spend the forty percent of last year’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) that remained unallocated. This money comes from cap-and-trade and must be used to further reduce greenhouse gases. In this case, having such a large chunk of extra funds has created a sort of paralysis because everyone wants some of it.

While transportation is only part of the budget, it is a big one, and how we invest transportation dollars now will have an impact on the state for many years.

Governor Brown’s proposed budget includes a couple of new sources of income for transportation funding, but it is unclear how he will make them happen. In addition to raising gas taxes, Brown proposed a “road improvement charge” that would be added to vehicle registration fees. However, both proposals need approval by two-thirds of the legislature to pass, and Republican members continue to oppose raising taxes or adding fees. The new sources of funds would add $4 billion to Brown’s transportation budget—so if they do not pass, transportation spending could be in jeopardy.

Brown also proposes new GGRF allocations for transit (capital expenses, not operations) and for a new “low carbon roads” program. Streetsblog has written about the problems with this proposal -- that in part it seems to duplicate the existing Active Transportation Program, and that the rest of it remains worrisomely undefined.

Brown’s proposal would include the following new allocations:

From increased taxes and a new “road improvement charge”:

• $3 billion to highways and local roads for maintenance
• $900 million to the State Transportation Improvement Program,  which is controlled by Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission and puts most of its funding towards highway expansion
• $200 million to trade corridors, which unfortunately means highway expansion, not rail

From the GGRF:

• $400 million for transit capital projects
• $100 million for “low carbon roads” 

Breaking the budget plan down into categories of “highway expansion” (car-planning-per-usual) vs. “active transportation” vs. “transit,” it is clear that it is very much business as usual. 

Business as usual: The Active Transportation Program receives less than one percent of the total proposed transportation budget, and transit does not fare much better. Image courtesy the California Bicycle Coalition

Of the total transportation budget of $18.1 billion, only a tiny slice goes to active transportation. That slice doesn’t even match the statewide bicycle commute mode share of 1.1 percent, let alone the share of all trips currently made by bicycle or walking. According to the last California Household Travel Survey, almost 20 percent of all trips are made by walking, biking, and transit -- and Caltrans’s Strategic Management Plan calls for increasing that to 47 percent by 2020.

If California wants to encourage people to bike and walk and take transit, it will to have to invest a larger percentage of its budget in those travel modes. Years of planning exclusively for cars has put the state way behind where it needs to be.

Meanwhile, the California Transportation Plan 2040, the framework used for planning to meet the state’s future transportation needs, includes the following strategies to meet a variety of state goals, including transportation and environmental goals:

• Doubling transit service and transit speed and reducing transfer wait times
• Twenty percent of local bus service to be Bus Rapid Transit
• Fifty percent reduction in future high-speed rail fares
• Five percent increase in carpooling and car-sharing
• Doubling bicycling and walking

If the cost to own and operate private cars keeps increasing, and there are huge increases in vehicle and fuel efficiency, then the state would be able to meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals, according to the plans’ projections.

But bicycling and walking are not going to double without more investment in making them safe, viable options for more people.

Advocates working on these issues in Sacramento have been formulating ideas for a counter proposal for the transportation budget. Working as a coalition under Climate Plan, groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, California Bicycle Coalition, Greenbelt Alliance, Safe Routes to Schools National Partnership, TransForm, PolicyLink, MoveLA, Public Advocates, and a host of others, are proposing that the governor and legislators invest transportation dollars where they will make the biggest difference in meeting public health, climate change, and equity goals.

Among their ideas are to:

• Build Complete Streets on all those new and newly-repaved roads
• Use transportation investments to create better job opportunities
• Reject “low carbon roads” and invest in the existing Active Transportation Program
• Balance transit capital investments with money for operations and transit passes
• Increase the investment in the Active Transportation Program by at least $100 million to bring it more in line with other spending
• Mitigate trade corridor expansion impacts, including environmental and induced traffic effects

Next Monday, April 11, the Climate Plan coalition will present a package of bills in Sacramento -- including some SBCA covered here  -- that move the state closer to achieving these goals. Stay tuned to Streetsblog California for coverage of their reception at their first hearing.

(Melanie Curry writes for Steetsblog California, where this piece was originally posted. To keep up with state transportation policy, follow Streetsblog on Twitter/StreetsblogCal.) Photo: The SF Chronicle. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.