Comments
AFTER THE FIRES - In the aftermath of the devastating wildfires, aroused Los Angeles leaders in the public and private sector instituted urgent initiatives to resurrect the scarred city.
At once, a number of separate entities sought command of the overwhelming reconstruction mission: a rebuild czar was appointed by the mayor; two leadership councils of civic leaders were privately established; the city council formed a five-member ad hoc committee; the governor launched a public-private philanthropic initiative; and the president said that a federal commission was to be appointed to oversee the effort.
But with so many hands struggling for the rebuild steering wheel, direction will be lost. Obscure and doubtful goals will end up creating confusion and misunderstandings. And if history’s handbook is correct, a myriad of frustrated groups will likely enter the scene.
It happened before, here in Los Angeles.
In 1992, after the civil disturbances, a central entity was created to focus on rebuilding the community, called “ReBuild LA”. As per the book, The Making of Modern Los Angeles, the respected Peter Ueberroth of Olympic Games fame, led the consortium. But it was not effective and functional. ReBuild LA slowly slipped to the status of a miniature city government. “People came to seek higher minimum wages, every city problem got dumped on this organization, every single one. It became an entity viewed from the outside as the problem solver, but not just for rebuilding,” according to Tony Salazar co-chair of the consortium. Ueberroth`s ReBuild LA had a grand initial entrance, and a grander promise. Slowly, however, uncertainty and even resentment from many community groups emerged and his role as rescuer of the inner city was questioned. In frustration, Ueberroth resigned.
This is no time for compounded experiments. Mistakes of the past should be remembered and avoided.
Leadership, pledged and dedicated, is the cornerstone of all rebuild efforts. It cannot be divided, delegated, or assigned. It is a long-term, full-time commitment—not a 90-day job with a contract.
Civic leaders have been important contributors to the city’s impressive growth, and their involvement is treasured, but this rebuild effort is immense and it will require work horses, not show horses.
State and federal guidance and financial support are essential to cope with devastations of this magnitude. But not government overreach. Fruitless conflicts over control between state and federal authorities result in delays and ineptness. Locally recognized strong leadership is the proven remedy.
For more than thirty years, while overseeing major infrastructure projects, I concluded that poor leadership and management resulted in disarray, higher costs and delays. And irrational exuberance for project outcomes should be avoided, as well as promoting individual projects that may result in individual gains.
Based on my experience, it is wrong for the mayor to depend on a consulting firm to plan and oversee the rebuild of the infrastructure. Clearly, this approach will result in exorbitant overruns and extensive delays. For proof, one has only to look at the Metro’s and City Public Works’ records.
For LA’s rebuilding effort, a crack in the glass has already appeared. The array of hands reaching for domination will inevitably lead to bitter in-fighting and greediness, intra-organization conflicts—conditions that can never be fully controlled but can be restricted and limited by strong and efficient leadership.
Urgent and timely actions to rebuild are critical, but the road map must be clear and carefully managed. Many entities, each with their own roadmap, is not the answer.
There are two applicable Greek phrases that fit this scenario: Will this be a Herculean effort requiring strength, focus and diligence. Or will this be a Sisyphean frustration, an effort never to be completed.
(Nick Patsaouras is a former Metro Board member and former president of LADWP Board.)
