LOS ANGELES

ALPERN AT LARGE--Inasmuch as many of us love a good fantasy/science fiction novel or movie, it's also incumbent upon us all to distinguish the humanistic/utopian issues raised from hard fact.  The late Isaac Asimov and others of his genre created wonderful novels but also emphasized the need to learn science, and to embrace both the emotional and the rational aspects of the human brain. 

TRANSIT WATCH-An obvious nature of riding transit in Los Angeles is that riders must walk to bus stops and rail stations, wait, then board the bus or train. After reaching the end of their rides, they depart and walk directly to their destinations or make a transfer to another train or bus.  

EDUCATION WATCH-The mood was festive at the annual Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Dinner in Los Angeles. About 600 Democrats gathered in a hotel ballroom on an October evening to begin wrapping up the year. Community activists and party worker-bees mingled with political luminaries to celebrate top volunteers. Anybody with a (D) after their name and $135 for a ticket was welcome at this event in blue, blue California. 

CORRUPTION WATCH-Like other addicts, the City would sooner die than give up its dependence on excessive construction. In fact, it might try to justify its abusive economic behavior by calling upon John Maynard Keynes. 

CAL MATTERS--State legislators are floating some creative schemes to blunt the impact of the new federal tax law on California taxpayers.

PERSPECTIVE--Over the past year or so our legislators in Sacramento have let it be known that they aren't happy with the pace of development in California's cities. As housing prices continue to rise, traffic continues to worsen, and the reality of climate change becomes ever more apparent, the Senate and Assembly have decided that local jurisdictions aren't doing their job and that the State needs to intervene.

EASTSIDER-In a move worthy of Tom Perez’ recent purge of the DNC Unity Committee, Eric Bauman is trying to lean on candidates for the 2018 Elections to forgo their rights to be voted on at the State Convention next month. 

So, let’s see what is truly being proposed. One of the really big deals in being a delegate is that you get to go to the convention and vote to endorse candidates for the various elected offices in California. It is, in fact, a right embedded in the CA Dems Bylaws. 

To circumvent those pesky little Bylaws, Eric Bauman has written a letter to potential candidates for office, asking them to waive their rights to be voted on by the delegates. He portrays his request as some kind of horsepuckey party loyalty gesture, but that doesn’t square with what it’s really all about -- control of endorsements.  

Even Bauman must admit in his letter, “I recognize that the choice is yours to seek the CDP’s endorsement consideration...” Well, thanks a bunch, Eric. You are truly a mensch for pointing out that you can’t legally do anything about it. 

Talk about anti-democratic. As the LA Times pointed out, what this boils down to is Bauman’s recognition that he tore the Party apart with his crooked vote counting decisions so he could beat Kimberly Ellis to be head of the party. Now he’s trying to keep the lid on. 

This kind of mentality is not going to switch a bunch of seats from Red to Blue in the Golden State, and his bush-league rhetoric is only going to make divisions widen. 

There are a couple of other reasons why this is a stupid attempt to control votes. First, the party faithful that cared enough to run for party office and become delegates are mostly viewed as food sources by the CDP: they simply want their money with a dollop of “vote how you are told.” 

Yet the best thing about being a delegate and going through all the arcane, backbiting, boring stuff at a convention is that you actually get to vote on endorsements. And early endorsements are a big deal. Potential candidates seek you out, pay attention to your opinion, and vie for your convention vote. 

Local clubs, like the East Area Progressives, have been doing early endorsements for some time. In their case, a recent early endorsement of Luis Lopez ultimately brought him within 1000 votes of the big bucks party establishment carpetbagger Wendy Carrillo in a runoff for the 51^st AD. Clear proof that the early endorsement system works. 

Further, what Bauman is really trying to do -- and I think he underestimates the intelligence of today’s delegates -- is to get to have his people, aka Executive Board of the CDP, decide who gets endorsed.  The fact that this means endorsements wouldn’t be made until after the Primary elections, sometime in the summer of 2018, evidently bothers him not. Let’s be clear. Eric Bauman wants for himself and the Executive Board to decide the endorsements.  

Remember, all these machinations are a desperate attempt to get around the CDP bylaws he is pledged as Chair to honor. The state party bylaws are pretty clear that “This Committee’s endorsement process shall be broadly and fairly representative of the various components of the Party.” (Article 8, Section 1, part d: yes, for democratic!) 

So, we will lose the ability to get people excited about candidates, to have a vigorous primary system that gives the occasional grassroots candidate a shot at getting elected to office; we will also lose the momentum that would make ordinary people kick in a Bernie $27 to help out the outsiders. 

The Takeaway 

It’s time for Bauman to retire on his lobbying dollars and allow a younger, more intellectually honest person to step in and run the CDP. Gee, like maybe Kimberly Ellis? Hmm... 

This attempt stinks so bad that even the Sacramento Bee ran an opinion piece by former state party controller Hilary Crosby called, “Don’t silence Democratic delegates on endorsements.”   

Bauman’s exercise is simply a California version of DNC’s distrust of grassroots small ‘d’ democratic candidates, and an attempt to maintain control of the party at any cost. As I wrote recently on the national DNC, “I just don’t understand how their politically correct and morally bankrupt pandering is supposed to gain them election victories.”    

Makes me wonder if that shoe doesn’t fit on the California Democratic Party as well. 

So, come on down, everyone. Ignore Eric Bauman’s latest suppression technique, have a great convention, and give us a good field of candidates who are grassroots locals and actually stand for something!

(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.

-cw

HOMELESS WATCH--1) Cost to build a SINGLE UNIT of “supportive housing” for LA’s homeless: $421,433 (footnote 1)
   

2) Cost to BUY a 1-bedroom CONDO in Westlake, or a 4-bedroom HOME in Riverside: $421,000 (2)
   

3) Number of homeless units built under Mayor Garcetti with $1.2 billion in HHH bonds: ZERO (3)
   

4) Cash spent by developers in 2017 to influence the City Council, mayor & officials to build MORE luxury housing: $4.8 million (4)
   

5) Skid Row’s average rent after the City Council gentrified the area for urban hipsters: $1,900/mo. (5)
 

6) Of 20 new residential towers slated for South Park, number that offer affordable units – TWO (6)
 

7) Affordable units planned for Westfield Promenade’s 1,400-unit mega-project in the Valley:  ZERO (7)
 

8) Number of households evicted by L.A. landlords so they could jack up rents in 2017: 1,200 (8)
 

9) Number of affordable bungalows & units razed by L.A. developers in 2017: “City Hall doesn’t keep track.” (9) 
 

10) Number of toilets Garcetti opened for 1,800 homeless people on Skid Row in 2017:  EIGHT (10)

FOOTNOTES

1. To view the data click here then scroll to the link "Prop HHH Developments Financial report."   

2. “Inland Empire Homes Between $400,000 and $450,000,” "One of Only of Four Units in This Building" “;

3. “Our LA: Top 10 Best (Open Space!) and Worst (Road Diets!) of 2017,” 

4. https://ethics.lacity.org/pdf/pressrelease/press_121917_Lobbying_Q3.pdf;  http://2preservela.org/developers-spend-big-bucks-lobbyists-influence-la-politicians;http://2preservela.org/pay-to-play-los-angeles-developers-control-what-la-becomes;

5. “Wholesale District/Skid Row Los Angeles Apartments,” 
6. “South Park: Mapping 27 Projects,” 

7. Approved by City Hall to create a “new downtown,” 

8. LA Weekly, “Evictions from Rent-Controlled Apartments in L.A. Double,” 

9. “LA City Council: ‘City Hall is Clueless about Its Role in Fueling Homelessness,’” 
10.  Los Angeles Times, “L.A. Adds More Public Toilets as Homeless Crisis Grows,”

(Provided by 2PerserveLA.)

-cw

RANTZ AND RAVEZ-As we enter 2018, there are so many items on the table to review, discuss and sort out. First, we should consider the new laws going into effect in 2018. New tax laws will impact most working and retired people in the great land of America. While some will surely benefit from them, namely the rich, corporations and people living in Red states, the rest of us, especially those living in California, will likely not benefit to any great degree. According to tax experts people in California, New York and some of the other more liberal Blue states will suffer. In reviewing these new tax laws with some friends who are CPAs, I have learned that the impact on my income will not be good as I will most likely pay more in taxes than in past years. 

Time will tell so I will let you know the results in the future. I did pay both the first and second installments on my property taxes before the end of the year since the deduction for 2017 is not limited as it will be soon. If you paid your full property tax bill like I did, you followed some good advice from tax experts.  

Then there are the new recreational marijuana laws in California. You no longer need to get a Medical Marijuana card to purchase pot. Anyone over 21 is now eligible to buy it for personal use to get high. While there are restrictions on transportation and locations where you can smoke marijuana, there will be those in our state who will drive loaded and get involved in traffic collisions, causing harm to others. DUI has continued to be a problem in our state and I believe it will only get worse with the ability to legally get high on pot. We know that DUI and injury traffic incidents have increased significantly in Colorado. In time we will know how many of us will be impacted by people driving loaded on pot. The message is clear. If you chose to get high, don’t drive. Save yourself and others the negative impact of a foolish act. 

In addition, remember that certain professions prohibit the use of pot for any purpose -- like airline pilots and other professions that fall under the rules of the Federal Government. Pot is still illegal under Federal Law.  

For regulations, go to the Bureau of Cannabis Control online. 

What ever happened to Due Process? 

We are a land of laws, rules and regulations. Since there is no common law marriage in California, everything needs to be codified. We have criminal laws, civil laws, real estate laws and so forth in California and throughout America. There are sexual harassment laws and consequences for violating them as well as other laws dealing with personal conduct. With the current trend of sexual harassment allegations against various men in politics, the media and the entertainment world, what ever happened to due process and the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty? 

I don’t condone any type of harassment or intimidation toward any woman, man or anyone else, straight, gay or transgender. All people have equal rights and freedoms. But after serving nearly 50 years in law enforcement, I strongly believe in the system that says an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Once facts are given and evidence is presented, hopefully justice will prevail and be served. 

Our system is not always correct or perfect and there are cases of miscarriage of justice. No person should ever be able or be permitted to intimidate, harm or harass any person. But in the current stormy Court of Public Opinion, when it comes to sexual harassment allegations, we need to remember that we are a society of rules and due process. There are statues of limitations and time limitations for different types of crimes. That means you must report an incident in a timely manner. If you are the victim of sexual harassment or any other crime, don’t wait years to report it. Make sure to get the incident on record and let the authorities deal with the investigation.

(Dennis P. Zine is a former and retired LAPD Supervisor, former and retired 12-year Los Angeles City Councilman and current General Manager at Bell Canyon in Ventura County.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

GELFAND’S WORLD--A little more than a year ago, mere weeks after the election of Donald Trump, Timothy Snyder published his best selling book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. It was a sobering look at how other western democracies had failed under the onslaught of totalitarian stress. Would the United States go down the path towards something resembling the Italian or Spanish fascism of the 1930s and '40s? Or, with Trump's obviously deranged personality and lack of personal ethics, was a path resembling that of 1930s Germany a possibility? After all, Trump's campaign was a direct appeal to racism and ultra-nationalism, the fear and hatred of minorities that harkened back to Berlin and 1933. 

A year ago, we had reason to fear proto-fascism, although most of us held to the belief that the United States is better than that. But as a nation, we were tested. 

Over this past year, we have seen enough of the Trump style to understand that he is a petty minded authoritarian who communicates his own essence by presenting a lot of dictatorial bluster: 

--Calling for his political opponents to be imprisoned. 

--Attacking the existence of the news media 

--Attacking the legitimacy of the rule of law as upheld by the courts 

--Presenting falsehood as truth 

--Attacking what is true as being falsehood. 

These are eerily similar to the dangers that Snyder warned about in his book. In this sense, the work was, sadly enough, prophetic. But Snyder's book was also a prescription for resistance to tyranny. He explained that we have to fight immediately, because resistance would become much more difficult if we wait. 

A lot of other people and organizations must have had similar thoughts, because within days of the election, the American streets were filled with protestors. The Women's March and the March for Science not only communicated to other Americans that they had allies, it communicated to those taking part in those marches that we were not alone. 

And other institutions of democracy held on. It was not only the courts. Curiously enough, the resistance began early in a place we might never have expected -- the television networks CBS and NBC. The two late night variety shows hosted by Stephen Colbert and Seth Meyers have carried on an unrelenting exposure of the illogic and dishonesty of the Trump administration. In so doing, they have made clear that freedom of speech still exists in the United States. 

Both of them carry out what real dictators won't allow: They tell the truth. And they do it night after night. There is nothing that takes down a man more effectively than being made into a joke, and Colbert and Meyers have done their best to make this happen. That Colbert and Meyers continue to say what they say shows the rest of the country (and the world) that freedom of speech still exists in America. 

Over the past year, we have learned a lot about our democracy. We learned that about two-thirds of us believe in it enough to defend its essential elements -- freedom of speech, the work of the courts, and the separation of powers defined in the Constitution. That is the plus side. 

On the minus side, we have the other one-third of Americans, those who continue to defend the Trump administration. In polls, they support attacks on freedom of the press and fail to support the independence of the court system. 

In the years of the Watergate scandal, a strong two-thirds support for impeachment of Richard Nixon would certainly have been enough. Trump's transgressions seem to be much worse than what Nixon was accused of doing. Trump is using the presidency to enrich himself and his family, and he's not bothering even to put the metaphorical fig leaf on the process. And as Josh Marshall has been pointing out, there isn't any question that the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power over the election. 

With all that in mind, I might have titled this column Will this be the last year for Trump? It could have been a debate over the danger that Trump will somehow try to create a dictatorship rather than be pulled down. After all, that was the warning from a year ago. 

But a couple of things have happened in the interim. One is the fact of the resistance. Dozens of millions of Americans have made clear that the crazier aspects of Trumpism can't be allowed to go into effect. 

All that resistance and Trump's personal unpopularity are leading to instability in the Republican hold on the congress. You can see it in the surprising number of senior congressional Republicans who have already announced their intent to retire at the end of 2018. National polls in which people are asked whether they support a generic Republican or a generic Democrat in the next congressional election are, at this moment, distinctly negative for the Republicans. In a world in which the prospects for the next election are what motivates politicians, the Republican brand has suffered a serious hit. 

So that's the first major finding -- the American people have managed to hold back the deluge by making use of that maligned tool called freedom of speech. In so doing, they have reminded a lot of politicians and a lot of ordinary folk that this is not really like the week after the Reichstag fire. 

But there is one other insight that has been less noticed. It's Trump's essential neediness. Everything we've learned about him over these past twelve months points to a man who needs (not just wants) to be recognized. It's also true that he can't stand criticism, and desperately craves adulation. At this level, he is like a four year old who needs to be held and soothed. The underlying cause might not really matter -- some health professionals use the term narcissistic personality disorder to characterize the president -- but the result is a man who can dish it out but can't take it. 

This is a guy who is more likely to be dangerous because he overreacts to small provocations. Trump has also been damaging to a lot of American values because he appoints people (take the Secretary of the Interior for example) who undo the protections we have worked so hard to gain over the years. 

The Cult of Personality that Failed 

But so far, Trump has shown that he lacks the guts (or the imagination) to be a real dictator. Sending late night Tweets about imprisoning your opponents is not the same as actually imprisoning them. Mr Trump, you are no Vladimir Putin. As much as Trump and his acolytes try to build up a cult of personality around him, it fails. Trump doesn't add up to that scary 1930s dictator we worried about a year ago. 

He just doesn't seem to have the lust for power that it takes. He likes to get his way, but doesn't do the work that it takes to be really effective. In fact, Trump seems to understand less about how government functions than any previous president or even the most garden variety congressman. 

Recent evidence for these views might come from the book by Michael Wolff that is due to be released in a few days. An excerpt is now running in New York Magazine. What comes out (in addition to the assertion that Trump neither wanted nor expected to be elected) is Trump's need to feel respected. The fact that he can't get that feeling just from holding the office of the presidency is telling. This is a guy who is more the whiney toddler than the iron chancellor. He is not a guy who inspires others to follow in slavish obedience to a commanding personality. 

Perhaps the best example of Trump's essential neediness and his lack of a charismatic dictatorial personality is the behavior of his cabinet in their first meeting. As the news media reported in amazement, newly created cabinet members began their comments with florid praise of Trump and how honored they were to work for him. As most of us recognized instinctively, a president with a sense of self-worth would never need nor want such praise spoken aloud in a cabinet meeting, and would most likely find the experience uncomfortable. But these cabinet members must have been quietly informed by staff that Trump needs to hear such comments in order to function. This is not a leader that people swear to follow through the gates of Hell. 

There is no Trump personality cult. There are those who support Trump because they share political goals (lower taxes for the super-rich) or because he mouths the sorts of prejudices that they secretly want to hear. But that's a lot different than believing in a leader because he exemplifies leadership in a time when times are desperate. 

That last point is important. Dictators arose in the 1930s in a time when the world had suffered a horrible war (perhaps the worst war in history in terms of human suffering), had endured a cruel economic depression, and had lived through famines in several countries. Desperation in a large fraction of the population makes it easier for dictators to flourish. Trump did not come into office at a similar time. There are certain parallels, the most important being substantial unemployment and underemployment, but that's a long ways from Europe in 1930. 

So we may have dodged a bullet in that Trump doesn't have the "fire in the belly" to push for more dictatorial powers. He might like the idea, but he doesn't have what it takes to fight for it. He is more President Crybaby than Il Duce. 

The Real Danger 

There is still danger in that Trump is showing signs of cognitive deficit and irrationality. As numerous reports show, he doesn't read much, understands little, and mainly reacts to what he hears on television. The clear danger is that he may continue to deteriorate, becoming even more irrational and emotional than he is now. With an even more deluded and impaired Donald Trump still in office, it would be hard to predict what he might do because of the immense power the office provides. 

Remedies 

So we may still wish to consider the legal ways that the nation might provide for a presidential succession prior to 2021. Impeachment might have already occurred in a saner era. But for the past couple of decades, the right wing has had its own propaganda arm on radio and television, and the right wing is enjoying having Trump in office. 

If the United States did not have its own semi-official Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda (or as we like to call it now, Fox News and talk radio), the impressive magnitude of evidence linking Donald Trump to unsavory activity would lead to his impeachment or forced resignation. As it is, Donald Trump will probably hang on for another year and, depending on the outcome of the 2018 congressional elections, we might see a timely resignation. If Trump is frustrated about not getting his way in congress right now, imagine how he will feel when Democrats control the body. In the meanwhile, we can hope to be spared from any worse forms of authoritarianism than we have already endured. And that's what the continuing resistance is about. 

Addendum 

Trump got his tax cut, so he has something to brag about. If he really wants out of the presidency, he has an excuse. He has agreed to a physical exam next week. If he wants to quit, he has merely to claim any of a number of conditions and he can leave honorably without the embarrassment of impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate. This isn't all that likely though, not because he is a new Mussolini but because of his essential neediness. He needs to be the center of attention, and that's precisely where he is right now.

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

-cw

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-If a public agency is going to spend $8 billion dollars on many miles of new subway, it makes sense to prepare station area plans that boost ridership. Yet, in Los Angeles the Purple Line Extension, pictured above, is falling through the cracks. Both METRO and the City of Los Angeles continue to make choices that will eventually reduce ridership at the new subway stations. Why? As far as I can determine, their goal is to maximize real estate development at and near subway stations, not to maximize ridership. 

To understand what is really going on, lets take a deep a dive into the planning history of subway construction Los Angeles. At CityWatch I recently described excellent – but ultimately rejected -- planning studies and zoning ordinances for the original 13 MetroRail stations. In the 1980s the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD), now called METRO, commissioned the Los Angeles Department of City Planning to prepare these 13-station area specific plans. Long moth-balled at the City of LA’s Piper Tech archives, these plans could easily be pulled out of a file cabinet and become the model for new Purple Line station area plans. Los Angeles would than have station area plans that prioritized ridership, not real estate development. 

Political Barriers to Transit Oriented Communities:  But now, over 30 years later, this simple process won’t be easy for several political reasons. In addition to METRO’s and City Hall’s developer-driven fixation to use mass transit as a pretext for zoning deregulation, there is little public pressure for passenger amenities at the three Purple Line stations. Called Transit Oriented Districts or Transit Oriented Communities (TOCs), this passenger-oriented approach is straightforward. In METRO’s own words, “TOCs represent an approach to development focused on compact, walkable and bikeable places in a community context (rather than focusing on a single development parcel), integrated with transit.” 

I would also add that METRO’s term “development” (i.e., private real estate investment) should be replaced with “affordable housing.” This is because these residences would house those future transit-adjacent residents most likely to become bus and subway passengers. 

But this great theory has no connection to METRO’s practice on the Purple Line Extension.  Furthermore, there are two very different groups in Los Angeles that are at odds with this crucial approach to transit planning. In their own way they create extra barriers to true passenger-oriented planning on Wilshire Boulevard and adjacent neighborhoods. 

On one hand, the cynics ignore real Transit Oriented Districts/Communities. They look at Los Angeles and see a metropolitan area where driving is the favored transportation mode, where bicycling is scary, and where busses and subways are a hassle to use. To their credit, the cynics know that most mass transit use in Los Angeles is involuntary. Most of those on busses and subways are the poor, the disabled, the young, and the elderly. The cynics conclude, therefore, that it is nearly impossible to get other Angelenos out of their cars and onto busses or subways. Their cynicism is easy to understand, but there are planning options that that would help many of them overcome their cynicism about strategically increasing transit ridership. 

On the other hand, Transit Oriented Communities are blocked by the market fundamentalists, who some people now call WIMBYs (Wall Street in My Backyard). These groups have a one-size-fits-all program to increase transit ridership without spending a public or private dime on neighborhood amenities. Their simple solution is to jettison any zoning and environmental laws that impede real estate investors from building market housing to their pocketbook’s content. I used to think that these “build-more-housing” crusaders were recently graduated Young Republican types on the lookout for business ventures, but several readers recently brought me up to speed about them. 

They linked me to well researched articles documenting how YIMBY’s and similar free-market housing backers are directly tied to major private sector investors, such as the Central City Association, to real estate developers, and to other commercial interests, especially high-tech investors and Silicon Valley. 

Not surprisingly, these local market fundamentalists gladly became a public voice for the major real estate companies who funded the no on S campaign in Los Angeles. On the stump, they faithfully parroted SG&A Campaign’s deceptive no on S talking points. They repeatedly smeared a voter initiative whose adoption would have quickly updated the Los Angeles General Plan and mandated a more careful review of discretionary zoning waivers as a spurious “housing ban.” 

A year later their approach to the Purple Line is cut from the same no on S cloth. They want to up-plan station areas above forecast population levels, rezone local parcels for bigger buildings, up-zone nearby single-family home neighborhoods for apartments, and eliminate any parking requirements.  What they do not call for is new station area housing to be affordable or for transit-oriented public improvements, such as bicycle and automobile parking, pedestrian enhancements, and bus and car interfaces at the new subway stations. 

Building Transit with Passengers in Mind:  Sandwiched in between the cynics and the WIMBY’s, however, are advocates like mewho call for transit to be thoughtfully planned.  Station areas should be designed to transparently guide Angelenos out of their cars and onto busses and subways. According to David Owen, in his masterful Green Metropolis, the trick is to make mass transit convenient. He argues that it is a waste of time to harangue people about the benefits of mass transit. Instead, cities and transit agencies must comprehensively upgrade their built environment to make busses, light rail, and heavy rail simple, safe, affordable, and comfortable to use. In a word, he calls for enhanced Transit Oriented Districts/Communities. In Los Angeles that means translating METRO’s wonderful words into actual public improvements at the Wilshire/LaBrea, Wilshire/Fairfax, and Wilshire/LaCienega Purple Line subway stations. 

Unfortunately, David Owen’s approach has few takers at either METRO or LA’s City Hall. The new subway will be hard to access because neither METRO nor LADOT is building any interface or facilities for pedestrians, cars (Park 'n Ride, Kiss 'n Ride), busses, taxis and ubers, and bicycles at the three Purple Line stations. Meanwhile Wilshire Boulevard already has zoning that allows unlimited height, which means high-density by-right commercial and residential buildings, not affordable housing. The future transit-adjacent tenants will own cars and continue to drive them most of the time. 

Unless subject to major revisions in the next few years, when the Purple Line opens for passengers in 2023 I fail to see how the market-based approach of METRO, LA’s City Hall, and the WIMBYs will work. As for the cynics, the jury is still out. Based on the template of the land use ordinance for the Exposition Line, increasing by-right building densities will remain the core principle.   Off-site improvements, especially affordable housing, improved sidewalks, and bicycle infrastructure will remain unfunded. Ditto for such on-site improvements as kiosks, bathrooms, and Kiss ‘n Ride and Park ‘n Ride. 

Doing Transit Right:  This is why I argue that the barely hidden agenda of rail projects in Los Angeles is to revive real estate in older parts of the city, not to move people. In fact, urban sociologist, Alan Whitt, did a classic study of BART and MetroRail, “Elites and Mass Transportation: The Dialectics of Power,” to prove this hypothesis. His research has withstood the test of time, and it indicates that when completed, the Purple Line extension will also become a predictable disappointment. It will usher in more market housing on Wilshire Boulevard, but much of this new housing will go begging for tenants.  In fact, this is already the case in the Miracle Mile, even with its exemplary express METRO bus service. When you drive by the Miracle Mile’s many new apartment buildings at night, most units are still dark. 

Despite METRO, City Hall, and both the cynics and free-marketeers, there are nevertheless many ways that Los Angeles could and should become a transit-oriented city. But this will take more than the camp followers of real estate speculators clamoring for more transit-adjacent market housing near bus and subway stops. 

To truly get people out of their cars, we absolutely need Transit Oriented Districts/Communities. This requires dedicated public funds for facilities at and near station sites to serve people in busses, uber, cars, vans, and on foot. It also should include special station vehicle entrance lanes and a full range of pedestrian access improvements, such as streetlights, wider sidewalks, and ADA curb cuts. It also means reliable bus and rail schedules, shorter headways, safe and comfortable buses and subway cars, and heavily subsidized fares. Next, it should include expanded public services and infrastructure to accommodate more people living in and traveling through neighborhoods near mass transit. 

As for the housing component, if we want the new tenants to become transit users, then the new station area apartments should be highly affordable and the new tenants should be transit dependent, drawn from the pool of 600,000 eligible people on the Section 8 housing list in Los Angeles. 

The time is short to avoid another expensive boondoggle.

(Dick Platkin is a former Los Angele city planner who reports on planning controversies in Los Angeles.  Please send any comments or corrections to [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ACLU CALLS THREAT ‘OUTRAGEOUS’--Immigrant rights advocates are denouncing an "appalling and disqualifying" proposal by the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to charge with federal crimes local officials who lead sanctuary cities, which often refuse to turn over or identify undocumented residents to the government's immigration agents.

The ACLU said Wednesday that acting director Thomas Homan's "outrageous threat" to bring charges against politicians who enact and carry out sanctuary city policies "should disqualify [him] from consideration for the permanent ICE director post."

After California made history earlier this week when it became the nation's first-ever sanctuary state, Homan responded in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday by warning that "California better hold on tight" and vowing to "vastly increase our enforcement footprint" by upping the number of ICE officers in the state.

"There's no sanctuary from federal law enforcement," he said. "For these sanctuary cities that knowingly shield and harbor an illegal alien in their jail and don't allow us access, that is, in my opinion, a violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324."   

Homan revealed that he is currently working with the Department of Justice to look into whether the federal government can "charge some of these sanctuary cities with violating federal law" and "hold these politicians personally accountable."

Watch:

California's newly enacted state-wide law "bars law enforcement officers in the state from arresting individuals based on civil immigration warrants, asking about a person's immigration status, or participating in any joint task force with federal officials for the purpose of enforcing immigration laws," according to SF Gate.

Although Homan—who has worked at ICE for three decades and is known for supporting anti-immigration policies—touted the Trump administration's favored narrative that sanctuary city policies endanger the public as well as federal officers, the Los Angeles Times notes that "research has shown sanctuary cities have lower crime rates and that immigrants generally commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens."

President Donald Trump appointed Homan to serve as acting director shortly after entering office last January. Though Trump announced in November that the acting director was his official pick to permanently lead ICE, Homan is still awaiting final approval by the Senate. 

Immigrant rights advocates denounced Homan's comments as "illegal intimidation" and further evidence that he should not be allowed to stay on as ICE's permanent director:

(Jessica Corbett writes for Common Dreams … where this report was first posted.)

-cw

CORRUPTION WATCH-Los Angeles has economic professionals like Christopher Thornberg of Beacon Economics, who should know better, supporting the vast corruption in Los Angeles’ housing policy by claiming that constructing high-end luxury apartments and condos creates homes for poor people. His mythical justification, as set forth in Conan Nolan’s NBC News Conference on Sunday, December 31, 2017, is that wealthy people will move out of older homes into the new places, freeing up those older places for poor people. 

1. Reality: The city is tearing down rent-controlled housing so fast that the supply of homes for poor people is not increasing. 

2. Reality: Los Angeles’s rent control [Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO)] only applies to units constructed before 1979. Thus, destroying all those old buildings forever removes rent control units and hence removes the most affordable housing, which can never be replaced. 

3. Reality: Under LA’s RSO, rent control ends when a tenant moves out and the next tenant must pay the market rate. Thornberg acted as if rent control keeps the rent at original rent control levels even as tenants come and go. He probably knows that is not true; perhaps he was careless. 

4. Reality: Rent control re-attaches to a pre-1979 building when the new tenant moves in at the market rate rent. Thus, tenants who remain several years can stabilize their rent to reasonable increases based upon the CPI and not based upon the fraudulently hyped housing prices. 

However, the City is having rent-controlled housing destroyed at break-neck speed. Economist Thornberg says that unless we build high-end luxury apartments, people will gentrify the poorer neighborhoods which still have single family homes. 

5. Reality: Apartments/condos are not fungible with detached homes which have their own yards. Family Millennials do not want apartments. Thus, constructing more apartments will not lessen gentrification of single family areas in South LA and Boyle Heights. 

6. Reality: Family Millennials do not want apartments and condos, but crooked developers can

skim off the most money from large projects. For example, HUD gave hundreds of millions of dollars to make CRA housing accessible to the disabled, but the developers pocketed all the money. Thus, developers build where they can steal the most and not where the actual demand exists. 

7. Reality: Wall Street and its friends at City Hall restrict the supply of detached homes on the market to create an artificial shortage in that segment so that they can rent out their detached homes at above-market-rate rents. Also, the detached homes which do sell will carry disproportionately large mortgages. 

Los Angeles’ Inflation Problem 

As Thornberg mentioned, inflation can be a problem for any economy; yet, he refused to admit that the increase in LA housing prices represents artificially induced inflation. “Inflation” exists when the buyer pays more but gets nothing more. A house which would have sold for $750,000 two years ago but sells for $1 million today has 25% inflation. Of course, the seller loves it, but for someone like Thornberg who is supposed to be concerned for the over-all economy, it is reckless to conceal the massive inflation in LA housing. People are paying more but receiving nothing more. 

The prime beneficiary is Wall Street due to the extra high mortgages the buyers take out when they pay an extra $25,000 for a home. 

Corruptionism Is Not a Form of Capitalism 

Under a regular capitalist system -- be it Adam Smith, a Mixed-Economy or Keynes -- this type of long-term scam would be over already. However, when corruption has turns into Corruptionism, different factors come into play. Basically, Los Angeles is in the throes of another round of Accounting Control Fraud. (Google: William K. Black) 

The basic difference between a capitalist system with corruption and Corruptionism is that with regular corruption, a few thieves are stealing public funds, but with Corruptionism, the thieves own the government and they use their control to divert public funds into their own pockets. That is why the Los Angeles City Council unanimously approves every construction project no matter how many laws it violates. 

Angelenos’ incomes did not increase to pay for the higher housing prices, e.g. mortgages and rents, but instead Angelenos have devoted a higher percentage of their income to housing. Also, Young Millennials who still had the Dorm Style mode of living doubled and tripled up in apartments in DTLA and Hollywood. Often parents would subsidize the kids' rent. The fact that the Young Millennials were a temporary phenomenon was no secret. Who was surprised that, as young people age, they start families and leave behind their childish ways. “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things” -- 1 Corinthians 13. 

Family Millennials want detached houses and this requires them to come up with down payments; they want to build equity and that requires a reasonable mortgage. Thus, the demand for the small apartments in Transit Oriented Districts is disappearing. Instead, the Family Millennials’ new life style

causes them to leave Los Angeles for places where they can afford a detached home. 

The City Hall Crooks Are Not Fools 

Since developers and economists like Christopher Thornberg understand demographic trends, they knew that as the Young Millennials would turn into Family Millennials, and would abandon Dorm Room style of living, making it necessary to create a new pool of money for the City to give to the developers. They used the ruse of Affordable Housing. 

The Garcetti Administration conned the voters to approve $1.2 billion in bonds for affordable housing. As we predicted before the election, most of those funds for Affordable Housing goes to developers of market rate housing on the pretext that they will add Affordable Units to their market rate complexes. 

As we shall see, the developers will bankrupt their LLCs and LLPs, then the courts will remove the affordable requirements, leaving only market rate apartments/condos. 

Eventually, Systemic Fraud Crashes Any Economy 

Because the LA housing market is an exercise in Accounting Control Fraud, constructing more density will not satisfy the Family Millennials’ demand for detached housing. We are driving out our next middle class and along with them, employers are leaving Los Angeles. The new tech employers are opening shop in other states; soon, Texas will be hosting more tech start-ups than California. 

Accounting Control Fraud always results in economic collapse: Equity Funding in 1970, The Savings and Loan Scandals in 1980's, Enron’s Double Entry Accounting during the 1990's, the Subprime Mortgage, Crash of 2008…and so on.

(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney and a CityWatch contributor. 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.

BCK FILE-Following a bruising political year, the midterm elections of 2018 are crucial, especially to states like California. With the executive and legislative branches controlled by the GOP majority, any judicial appointments are likely to follow the suit. 

The GOP and Trump Administration policies have the potential to hurt California on numerous levels, from immigration and health care to the tax bill. Californians, along with residents and homeowners in states like New York, New Jersey, and Illinois that have high state income tax and higher home values and/or real estate taxes, will be impacted by the ceiling on property tax and state income tax deductions that may end up hurting the real estate market, as well. 

It’s no coincidence that Donald Trump is the first president since Eisenhower to have not touched down in the Golden State during his first year in office. He barely tweeted recognition of the acres of wildfires throughout the state. For California, flipping the seats in the midterms is crucial on many levels.

For the Dems to flip the House in November, the party will need to defend eight seats and turn over an additional 24 to gain a majority. There are 468 seats in the U.S. Congress -- 33 in the Senate and all 435 in the House – up for grabs next fall. The GOP comes in with a 51-seat majority in the Senate to 49 Democrats (following Doug Jones’ win in Alabama) including two Independents. 

Going into the November 6 elections, the GOP holds 241 seats in the House; the Democrats hold 194 seats. If we follow the historical trajectory, the Democratic party should gain seats in the House, because ever since 1934, the party of a newly elected president traditionally loses seats in the next midterms. Only twice since then has the president’s party gained seats -- in 1934, following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s election and in 2002 following the election of George W. Bush. President Trump’s significantly low approval rating could further impact this trend. 

Incumbents tend to have an advantage in terms of larger campaign war chests and recognition. Most political pundits see 40 competitive races, of which 32 are held by the GOP and eight by Democrats. The Democrats will need to capture at least 24 of these seats to flip the House. 

However, a stream of office holders has resigned or announced they will not be seeking reelection in 2018, including GOP senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), as well as others in competitive districts. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has said he might retire following the midterms. Sexual harassment allegations have caused several lawmakers to leave Congress early, including Al Franken (D-WI), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Blake Fahrenthold (R-TX), and Ruben Kihuen (D-NV) who announced he will not seek reelection in 2018.

The Democrat strategy is to concentrate on the 23 districts in which voters elected Republicans in the Congressional races but where Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump. Seven of those seats are here in California, in and around traditionally conservative Orange County where the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has opened a satellite office. 

If you remember, in 2016, Orange County voted for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in 80 years. Flipping those seats is reliant on getting out the vote and unifying the party’s liberal and centrist interests. 

The 7 races in California to keep an eye on are: 

Ed Royce, 39th Congressional District 

Dana Rohrabacher, 48th Congressional District 

Mimi Walters, 45th Congressional District 

(Royce, Rohrabacher, and Walters represent Orange County.) 

Darrell Issa, 49th Congressional District (south toward San Diego) 

Steve Knight, 25th Congressional District (Santa Clarita Valley) 

David Valadao, 21st Congressional District (Central Valley) 

Jeff Denham, 10th Congressional District (Central Valley) 

We’ll be looking at important races throughout the country needed to Flip the House and at a Southern California mother/daughter team traveling to cover women running for Congressional seats throughout the country in Women2018. 

Stay tuned.

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

-cw

CAL MATTERS-One way or another, two words are likely to dominate the complicated politics of California’s housing crisis in 2018: rent control. 

Next week state lawmakers will hear a proposal from Assemblyman Richard Bloom, Democrat from Santa Monica, that would allow cities to dramatically restrict what landlords can charge tenants year-over-year. The bill couldn’t even get a hearing last year amid intense opposition from landlords. 

But looming over legislators’ heads this time around is a potential ballot initiative supported by tenants’ rights groups that would do much of the same. If the bill stalls, experts say there’s a good chance you’ll see rent control on your November ballot. 

What should your average Californian know about a rent control debate poised to gobble up so much political oxygen? Here are five key points: 

1. Under current state law, a wide swath of California’s housing stock can’t be placed under rent control. 

Rent control or rent stabilization policies come in different shapes and sizes depending on the city you may find them in. Some place a hard cap on how much a landlord can raise rents year over year, others may be indexed to inflation. Currently 15 California cities have some form of rent control on the books, including major population centers like San Francisco, Los Angeles and Oakland. 

But current state law prohibits any locality in California from imposing rent control on properties built after 1995. That’s the year the state passed the Costa-Hawkins Act, which also prohibited cities that already had rent control laws on their books from updating them for new properties. Thus, in Los Angeles. rent control only applies to buildings constructed before 1978, and in San Francisco, rent control only applies to buildings built before 1980. 

A bit of background: After some cities responded to tenants’ concerns about rising rents in the 1970s and 80s by adopting rent control ordinances, real estate interests first tried to stop them in the courts. Unsuccessful there, they focused on the Legislature. Bills to preempt local rent control would routinely pass the Assembly and then die in the Senate, held up by then-Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti, a West Hollywood Democrat. The year after he was termed out of office, Costa-Hawkins passed by a one-vote margin. 

Both Bloom’s bill (as it is currently written) and the initiative would fully repeal Costa Hawkins, massively expanding the number of properties on which cities could impose rent control. That includes single-family homes, which Costa-Hawkins also excluded from rent control protections. 

2. Most economists—left or right—think rent control is bad. 

Economists have a hard time agreeing on most things. But regardless of partisan leaning, most economists would say rent control is not great policy. Even prominent progressives like Paul Krugman have expressed opposition to it. 

Rent control is quite literally the textbook example of a “price ceiling”– undergrad economics textbooks will often feature problem sets with questions about what’s wrong with rent control. The classic microeconomic downsides include killing the incentive to build more housing, causing landlords to neglect maintenance and repair, and inflated prices for non-rent-controlled units. A poll of ideologically diverse economists found that only 2 percent agreed with the statement that rent control had had a positive impact on housing affordability in cities like New York and San Francisco. 

3. Scholars in other fields are generally bigger fans. And if you took away rent control, the results could be disastrous for affordability. 

Many urban planners and other scholars studying gentrification and displacement cite rent control as an effective policy to keep long-time residents in the communities in which they live and work. And because rent control has become so deeply embedded in the housing markets of some cities, taking it away—no matter how economically inefficient it may be–could spell disaster for current residents. 

The Bay Area Council Economic Institute–a business-aligned policy think tank–ran a simulation of 20 policy changes that could improve or worsen housing affordability in San Francisco. The policy that would make things worse? Getting rid of rent control, which they found would plunge 16,000 households into an unaffordable housing situation. 

4. One of the best studies of rent control shows that it primarily benefits older households at the expense of households without rent control. 

There actually aren’t a ton of empirical studies looking at how rent control plays out in practice.

But a groundbreaking Stanford University study released last year on San Francisco’s rent control experience has shed new light on who wins and who loses from the policy. 

Looking at a roughly 20-year span of proprietary rental and migration data, the study authors found that rent-controlled tenants age 40 or over saw average savings of nearly $120,000 from rent control; by contrast, younger rent-controlled tenants only saved an average of $40,000. 

That’s because younger households were more likely to move out of rent-controlled apartments because of various life milestones—a new job, a new family, buying a house in the suburbs, etc. 

5. The study also found that rent control paradoxically fueled gentrification, as landlords converted units to condos. 

The Stanford study also found that rent-controlled buildings were 10 percent more likely to be converted to a condominium or some other type of non-rental property, as landlords searched for ways to evade the law. Those units being drawn off the market partly drove up rental prices for tenants searching for apartments in San Francisco. In this sense, the study authors argue, rent control paradoxically contributed to the well-publicized gentrification the city has experienced over the past few decades.

While the study also found that rent-controlled tenants were more likely to stay in the city than tenants without rent control, the gap may not be as wide as you think. After 10 years, about 11 percent of tenants without rent control were living at the same San Francisco address. Tenants with rent control? Thirteen percent stayed put. 

How to participate in the debate: The rent control bill will be heard by the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on Thursday, Jan. 11 at 9 a.m., and will include a public comment period. You can watch the hearing—which should be pretty lively as far as legislative hearings go—here.

(Matt Levin is the data reporter for CALmatters where this piece was first published.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

-cw

GUEST COLUMN--Ahed Tamimi, the fierce 16-year-old Palestinian girl arrested last month for daring to confront an Israeli soldier who'd allegedly shot her cousin in the head, has been indicted on 12 vengeful charges, from assault to incitement.  

GUEST WORDS-Recently, while visiting several different coffee shops in San Francisco, I noticed many of their restrooms have signs on the doors saying, “Closed Until Further Notice.” Upon questioning the employees, they immediately tried to re-direct me to other establishments in the neighborhood that offer public restrooms. 

When I asked if their restrooms would be repaired soon, the clerks explained they cannot keep them open because the homeless take baths in them, flooding the floors as well as shooting up drugs and throwing their dirty needles on the ground. 

The clerks are quickly learning that a homeless person has no choice but to remain dirty because of no access to baths, are compelled to sometimes steal food because of hunger, and are forced to sleep when and where they can because they have no beds like most people do. 

But the employees still must remember that their job is to take care of the paying customers who are entitled to a clean establishment with restrooms available. 

Employees told me that they often find homeless people asleep in their restrooms and to get them to leave, they sometimes need to call the police for help. 

One young clerk told me that since the homeless don’t get to bathe regularly, customers in the store complain that restrooms sometimes smell badly. He said it is easier to place an “Out of Order” sign on the door than to try and explain the situation to the paying customers who are out of luck in their need for a restroom, and frequently take out their frustrations on the employees. 

Often, he continued, homeless people fall asleep with their heads on the tables, surrounded by large garbage bags filled with their belongings; customers will not sit near them. 

In areas of cities with a large homeless population, employees not only put “Out of Order” signs on restroom doors, they remove chairs and tables, forcing customers to stand to drink their coffee, hoping to deter the poor from coming in to bathe and sleep. 

In the coffee houses that do provide chairs, employees explain that they feel sorry for the homeless who are often young people close to their own age. Sometimes they let them sleep for several hours before asking them to leave. 

Since customers will not sit near them while they sleep and often choose to leave the establishment, business in some areas is declining. I wonder if the employees’ training prepares them to gently yet firmly deal with the poor in their neighborhoods as well as serve the paying customers. 

The need for shelters for the poor is extremely critical and I applaud employees at coffee houses for trying to sensitively deal with the homeless situation, though I am certain they are not paid to both serve paying customers and interact with homeless people. 

A young woman working at one coffee shop in San Francisco shared with me that telling someone who obviously hadn’t had a bath for days to leave the establishment seemed intensely cruel to her. She is in college and this is her first job, as well as her first experience in dealing with the poor. 

At her shop, she added, they have to remove the cream after each customer uses it instead of leaving it out, because homeless people will drink it all. The clerk said there have been times she was not certain if some people were homeless or not, and found it awkward to be the judge of that. 

While many shops throw homeless people out of their stores, some teach their employees that treating all people with dignity and respect is the number one requirement of all jobs. 

Theft in some coffee shops continues to take its toll. Employees are expected to police the products on the shelves as well as keep homeless people out of their restrooms and prevent them from falling asleep in their chairs. 

All this, on top of doing normal customer service work, seems over and above the line of duty for young adults who are often trying to pay their way through college with their part-time coffee shop jobs. 

As the population of homeless people grows, we cannot simply say, “build houses for everyone” while not offering, in the meantime, ways for the poor to bathe, sleep, eat, store their belongings, as well as take care of their bodily needs, which we all have to do to survive. 

Perhaps the clerks in these coffee shops who encounter the homeless population everyday are the very ones who will lead us to much-needed solutions!

(Judy Joy Jones blogs on Street Spirit where is piece originated.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

-cw

CONNECTING CALIFORNIA-Who is the most powerful governor in California history? The next one. Over the past four decades, our state’s governorship has grown so great in reach and power that it now constitutes a second American presidency. 

California governors sign international treaties and agreements, and are treated like national leaders at the biggest global gatherings. They head a state government so powerful and sophisticated that it sometimes operates as a fourth branch of American government—employing regulations, lawsuits, and the size of the California market to check the president, Congress, and even the courts. 

Here at home, our governors dominate not only politics and policy but also California’s civic conversation itself. Since trends in the electorate, the legislature, and the media all enhance the governor’s power, the next governor is likely to be even more powerful than Jerry Brown. Which is why there should be far more attention paid to the 2018 governor’s race—and to the question of whether the governorship itself has become too powerful. 

California’s centralized power contrasts with the state’s image as open and diverse, with a progressive culture and innovative technology bent on disrupting existing structures. And California has long been considered almost ungovernable—with its many different competing regions, interest groups, and local governments. 

But this diversity and complexity—and the resulting frustration about getting anything done—is at the heart of the governor’s power. Precisely because it’s so hard to get attention and to orchestrate policy among so many unruly constituencies, Californians are often desperate to find someone—or anyone—with the power and agency to make a decision and accomplish what they want. And that person has been, more and more often, the governor. 

For the past 40 years, voters, special interests, other governments, and even the legislature have been ceding powers to what was already a very strong executive position. California governors can issue executive orders, veto bills, veto particular line items in an appropriations bill, vote as a member of the Board of Regents, set special elections, and declare emergencies. Of course, they can grant pardons, commute sentences, and call up the National Guard, too. 

Most formidably, the governor has the power to appoint more than 4,000 positions, including all judges, giving him power to control policy in areas from school curriculum to coastal protection. The governor also can fill vacancies in any statewide office, including the attorney general or controller. The only politician in this country with more appointment power is the mayor of Chicago. 

In the 1970s, the governor’s authority grew as power was transferred from local governments to Sacramento in two big shifts. First, state courts, in the name of making school funding equal, took funding power away from local governments. Then voters, in the name of protecting homeowners and taxpayers, passed Proposition 13, which effectively took power over taxation away from local governments. 

As Sacramento made more decisions for Californians, governors made more use of the full power of their offices to get the upper hand. Pete Wilson pioneered the use of executive orders for a host of vital policy changes. Gray Davis devised new ways to intervene in the legislative process, dismissing protests from lawmakers about his imperiousness by declaring: “Their job is to implement my vision.” 

Arnold Schwarzenegger combined his celebrity, his wealth, and his office’s power to devise ballot initiative campaigns that gave him greater leverage with the legislature. Schwarzenegger also pushed through climate change legislation that empowers the state’s muscular regulatory agencies to act as both money collectors and enforcers of one of the most complicated environmental regimes on earth. 

The state’s regular budget crises also enhanced gubernatorial power; governors often demanded wider room to manage the budget and the state’s cash flow, as the price of compromise with the legislature. Governor Brown also has bargained more authority; the state’s new law to establish a $15 minimum wage by 2022 gives the governor the power to delay the hike for different reasons. 

Then there are the voters who, disgusted by gridlock that was easily blamed on the legislature, have often granted more authority to governors without even thinking about it. The most dramatic example was when voters installed legislative term limits in 1990. With that change, lawmakers and staffs could stay for only a few years at a time, whereas in the executive branch the governor could rely on department heads and powerful regulators who had long careers and inside knowledge. 

The legislature has failed to counter such executive power—its relatively small number of lawmakers (California has the country’s smallest legislature on a per-voter basis) is stretched thin, and has little time for detailed hearings, investigation, or oversight of the governor and his administration. The legislature also doesn’t have the same institutional infrastructure to produce data and reports to guide policymaking; when legislators make laws and budgets, they often rely on the executive branch’s numbers. 

As Sacramento made more decisions for Californians, governors made more use of the full power of their offices to get the upper hand. 

More recent good government reforms also have weakened the legislature and thus strengthened the governor. In 2008, voters stripped the legislature of perhaps its greatest power—the power to draw legislative districts—and gave it to an independent commission. And in 2010, voters got rid of the requirement of a two-thirds vote to pass a budget, which had given the minority party in the legislature considerable power to challenge the governor. 

These days, the opposition has little juice. All the governor needs is the support of the two leaders of the majority party in the legislature. In this era of one-party Democratic control, that majority party is the governor’s own party, further enhancing his power. 

California’s diminished media also reinforces the notion that the governor is the only game in town. With fewer reporters covering Sacramento, the governor has become the only politician who is covered regularly. Even State Senator Kevin de León, who has been the most influential legislator of this decade and is now running for U.S. Senate, remains little known across the state. 

In much of Sacramento, the power of the governor is considered a natural and even good thing. In a state so big, goes the argument, it’s good to have one elected official—the governor—who can focus attention and accountability. 

Of course, that’s only true if Californians pick a governor who can use that power responsibly. And right now, few of us are paying much attention to the gubernatorial contest. Instead, Californians are deeply worried about all the power in the American presidency, and how it might be misused by the current occupant of the White House. 

But the perils of runaway executive power aren’t limited to Washington D.C. Pay attention, California, because it could happen here.

(Joe Mathews writes the Connecting California column for Zócalo Public Square.

Primary Editor: Lisa Margonelli. Secondary Editor: Reed Johnson.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

-cw

ALPERN AT LARGE--There are many things for Los Angeles (and, of course, its citizens) to be proud of as we enter this Brave New World of 2018.  But the unhappiness of those who live in our ever-more-risky, ever-more-complicated reality is contrary to any suggestions that we are doing just fine in the City of the Angels.  So in no particular order, here are a few hopeful resolutions to consider: 

1) Mayor Garcetti and the City Council SHOULD crow about the 2028 Olympics, but will it be a financial and political boon, or a bane, to current and future Angelenos?  We ARE one of the few cities best-equipped to have an Olympics, but will the preparations and operations leave us in the financial dust, or more ready than ever to be a vibrant and ongoing tourist/business destination that ranks high among our national and global peers? 

2) One can be kind, liberal, and smart ... and tough (!) in addressing homelessness!  We passed Measure H, and HHH, to combat homelessness, but what is our goal...to make it worse?  To become a homeless magnet for the nation?  Do we have the ability and moral fortitude to reach out to those with ties to our communities...while demanding that others not be drawn here for "free stuff"?  What about the rights and responsibilities of ALL of us? 

3) Will we provide that magic path to solving the illegal immigration problem, or just do the political and economic dance that rewards lawbreaking while ignoring the very human needs of those here legally and illegally?  Shall we reward employers who knowingly break the law?  Can we provide a tough list of demands for those here illegally to show they're willing to fight and earn their way to true American citizenship, and unite us all? 

4) If Metro gives us a slow ride to nowhere, as opines Susan Shelley of the Daily News? then it's up to our civic and elected leaders to show the way.  Expedite the rail lines through Downtown and to LAX so that there is the critical backbone and logic to our countywide mass transit system. 

5) When we will grow up and recognize that neither cars nor trains nor buses are "bad", and that they work best in tandem?  All worldwide cities have and employ all forms of transportation to provide options...so neither parking, bus stops, sidewalks, nor bicycle amenities are "bad".  All must be first-rate, and all must be respectful to those who use those forms of transportation. 

6) Developers and enabling political and bureaucratic leaders, when they build without necessary supportive infrastructure, aren't being "woke" or "progressive"... they're just being irresponsible and environmentally-horrible. 

7) "Affordable housing" requires common-sense and better definition to the average Angeleno:  there's student affordable housing, there's senior affordable housing, and there's workforce affordable housing.  Otherwise, it's just MORE housing, and if we're overbuilding near the ocean to make more money, then call it what it is: gentrification. 

8) We have a City Attorney whose job it is to represent the City Council and the Mayor (and their staffs), and we have NO city position to allow ordinary Angelenos of lower to middle-class status the financial means to defend themselves against the City and developers when the latter breaks the law.  We don't need an ACLU ... we need an agency or legitimate lawyers and paralegals to represent the Citizenry. 

9) We have a pathetic, underfunded, and unempowered City entity called DONE, aka Empower LA.  Many heroes work within that entity, but the understaffing and overreliance on volunteer efforts taxes and prevents these individuals from allowing the representation for which this entity was originally intended.  Shall we continue this unsustainable pattern, or truly empower our civic leaders? 

10) Both the private and public sector need the tools, guidance, and opportunities to achieve and sustain middle class status ... including retirement benefits that should be available to ALL Angelenos.  How long can our City leaders defend and sustain the public sector on the backs of the taxpaying majority ... and will we NEVER see an incentivized system to allow private-sector individuals and businesses a better system than, and supplemental to, Social Security, the way we see with our public sector employees? 

Here's to a vibrant and innovative, and to a happy and healthy, 2018!!!

(Kenneth S. Alpern, M.D. is a dermatologist who has served in clinics in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties, and is a proud father and husband to two cherished children and a wonderful wife. He is also 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 was co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and chaired 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 Dr. Alpern.)

-cw

GUEST COMMENTARY--Sexual harassment by elected officials in California is all over the news but less visible forms of political immorality are just as prevalent. One example is that of state legislators who sell students, families and vulnerable citizens down the river to boost prison guard compensation.

CORRUPTION WATCH--The great advantage of Lies and Myths is that they dispense with reality which can be so unpleasant.  In the realm of make-belief, where Americans prefer to live, everything they believe is true and there is no need for introspection.  Trying to think can give a brain freeze faster than a Slurpee at 7/11.