11
Sat, May

LA Times Tiptoeing Around the Price Bigamy Allegations

@THE GUSS REPORT-On Friday, March 3, Dakota Smith, writing for the LA Times, referenced my article in CityWatch in her report on the bigamy allegation swirling around District 9 City Councilmember Curren Price. 

Smith noted that Price, whose opponent Jorge Nuño was endorsed by the LA Times for the city’s March 7 Primary Election, was scrambling to prove that he is actually divorced from his first wife, Lynn, stating:   

“Price and his legal team are trying to locate records that would prove the divorce was finalized.” 

Since Smith had access to the entire divorce file and could see that no such document exists in it -- and Price has refused to tell Smith whether he filed for divorce elsewhere -- she shouldn’t hold her breath waiting for those “missing” records to surface from Price’s people. 

Smith then quoted Josh Pulliam, Price’s campaign spokesman: 

Mr. Price has been operating on the belief that his divorce is full and final,” said his campaign spokesman, Josh Pulliam. “Based on the questions raised in the past few days, he immediately requested all of the files and records regarding the divorce so we can get this resolved.” 

Did Smith ask Pulliam how can that be, since records show that Price and wife #1 did not split real estate they co-owned and never resolved other financial or spousal support issues? 

Does Smith blindly accept that Price (who has a law degree, but not a license to practice) and his divorce attorney both forgot to address this since the case’s last hearing in 2012?

What divorce lawyer forgets to split assets? 

Last week, I challenged Mr. Pulliam on his assertion that Price immediately asked for his divorce file upon hearing of the bigamy allegation. In fact, it was way back in a January 20 email exchange that I first asked Price’s City Hall media relations person, Angelina Valencia, in what state, county and year did Price divorce his first wife? She never provided a date. Pulliam replied, “that’s news to me.” 

An impromptu face-to-face I had with Price before the February 3 LA City Council meeting in Van Nuys went as follows: 

DG: Can you please tell me in what state, county and year you divorced your first wife, Lynn? 

Price: Why do you want to know that? 

DG: Because it’s an interesting question.           

Price: Why do you think it’s an interesting question?

DG: Because the court shows that your divorce was never finalized, and that you are, and have for a long time, been married to two women. 

Price turned and walked away without saying another word. 

These two exchanges were one and two months ago. 

I also repeatedly raised the subject in public comments at several City Council meetings. Price, Pulliam told Smith, only asked for his divorce records from his attorney just the other day…after the first of my two earlier articles on the subject. Price sat on the subject for months; he did not take immediate action to find out what is going on. Is that because he already knew?

In her Times article, Dakota Smith also quoted Price’s divorce attorney Albert Robles as saying: 

“Curren Price is divorced, end of story,” Robles said in a statement. “I was Curren Price’s attorney; my office filed the paperwork. As far as Curren Price is concerned, his divorce was settled years ago and that’s what was communicated to Mr. Price at the time.” 

This is the exact quote Robles gave the LA Sentinel a few days after my first article was published. Smith also failed to write about whether Price perjured his Los Angeles Ethics Commission financial disclosure forms. Had she examined Price’s ethics forms, she could have asked him why he listed no spousal assets from either wife on his 2012 form, or why Price failed to list wife #1’s financial assets in any subsequent year’s disclosure forms since he had to have known – according to his own legal activity – that he was still married to her. 

More glaringly, Smith did not mention that in Price’s divorce file in 2012, he, his attorney Albert Robles, and their process server swore (on a misdated document) that they unsuccessfully tried to serve divorce papers on Lynn Price, wife #1, at 4519 Don Arturo Place in Los Angeles. 

Astonishingly, that is an address that Price’s wife #2, Del Richardson, has owned since 2001, according to real estate records and Price’s City Ethics forms, which says that the income from that house came from “Dr. and Mr. Earl Jones.” 

How does that math work? Pardon the pun, but that is Price-less.

 

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is an Active Member of the Los Angeles Press Club, and has contributed to CityWatch, KFI AM-640, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Daily News, Los Angeles Magazine, Movieline Magazine, Emmy Magazine, Los Angeles Business Journal and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @TheGussReport. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

LA’s Plutocracy vs. the People - The Financial Equivalent of ‘Hacking the Election’

PERSPECTIVE-I yearn for the days when I covered the CD2 special election back in 2009, one that pitted three insiders against seven average citizens. I attended almost every forum (there were at least a dozen) and provided the most comprehensive coverage of any outlet. 

The seven grassroots candidates were instrumental in forcing a runoff; unfortunately, the top two finishers were insiders. At least the two had to dig deep in their pockets in what was one of the most expensive council races in the city’s history. 

In recent years, I have traveled extensively for business reasons. I miss attending the forums; I miss writing about them even more. 

Measure S is the headliner of this year’s ballot; the citywide races offer little drama, although it would be worthwhile for voters to consider an alternative to Eric Garcetti, whose promises of DWP reform and fiscal responsibility have fallen well short of what is needed to support sustainable services. 

Measure S pits democracy against plutocracy. Either we have a city where the residents have a say in the shape and structure of development, or planning is left in the hands of wealthy developers and their proxies in City Hall – a plutocracy only Vladimir Putin could embrace. Their funding of the opposition to S amounts to the financial equivalent of hacking the election. 

If you want planning that facilitates community-wide needs and desires, vote Yes on S. We must stop straining our already over-burdened infrastructure any further, curtail the growing traffic on our streets and prevent mini-Manhattans from dominating the landscape. We want growth to be the result of smart planning – within our capacity to manage and control its effects. 

The one council race I have watched from afar is CD7’s. 

With 20 candidates vying for an open seat, voters – at least the few who bother to cast a ballot – are certain to find someone to their liking. I am at least somewhat personally acquainted with, or have followed the postings in social media of a few: Terrence Gomes, Bonnie Corwin, David Barron and Krystee Clark. I can say, with confidence, they are true activists whose motives are not political, but rooted in the best interests of their community. I am sure there are others as well. 

On the other end of the spectrum is Karo Torrossian. He is Councilman Krekorian’s land use deputy who, if elected, will be certain to do the bidding of developers at the expense of residents. He has done a poor job of advocating for the residents in my part of the Valley. 

You have important choices in other races as well, but these two are the most competitive and offer the best chances for a positive change in how the city operates.

 

(Paul Hatfield is a CPA and serves as President of the Valley Village Homeowners Association. He blogs at Village to Village and contributes to CityWatch. The views presented are those of Mr. Hatfield and his alone and do not represent the opinions of Valley Village Homeowners Association or CityWatch. He can be reached at: [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

Measure S: Be Careful What You Wish for… Especially if You’re Voting No

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-Both sides of the debate over Measure S have inflated expectations of what their vote will produce on March 7, especially those voting no. This is why I admonish both camps to be careful what they wish for. 

What yes on S voters should expect after a victory 

To my fellow supporters of Measure S, do not think that if S wins on Tuesday, Los Angeles’s skewed and dysfunctional planning system will quickly self-correct. This is a long war, and this will only be one victory. Future struggles will be over the following: 

  • The General Plan is only as good as its monitoring program. The General Plan Framework requires a special monitoring unit in the Department of City Planning to develop and track measures of the General Plan’s successes and failures. This unit was charged with presenting these findings in an annual reporting leading to revisions of the General Plan’s elements. City Planning never created this monitoring unit, and since 1997, City Planning staff has only presented five incomplete reports. None examined the successes or failures of the programs intended to implement the General Plan, and none resulted in any mid-course corrections. 
  • City Hall’s in-fill density hawks are already hatching schemes to circumvent Measure S if it passes. These presumably include accelerated Community Plan updates that will apply extensive ordinances up-zoning and up-planning to large swaths of Los Angeles. 
  • Re-code LA has already quickened some of its five-year program, and these zoning code revisions can become still another Measure S work around. 
  • The Department of Building and Safety’s turn-the-other eye approach toward real estate speculation and its low staffing levels ensure that contractors easily game the system. The mansionizers have already been doing this for years, and there is little stopping the mega-projects in the sights of Measure S from doing the same. 

What no on S voters should expect with a victory 

As for those no on S advocates (whose claims I have repeatedly rebutted through CityWatch), you particularly need to be careful what you wish for. We have heard your extravagant claims about tackling homeless, creating affordable housing, and generating jobs, but all a no on S vote does is maintain the City Hall status quo. On March 8 you will simply get more of what LA already has. This includes all of the following, plus more, since the 10 large real estate firms funding the no on S campaign will feel their oats with a victory. Likewise, the SG&A campaign firm they hired will have learned how to pitch all manner of trickle-down economic programs as answers to homelessness, displacement, gentrification, traffic congestion, suburban sprawl, and job creation. 

But reality will soon assert itself, and City Hall will quickly forget these no S claims. In fact, they will be replaced by the following: 

  • City Hall’s pay-to-play system of soft corruption, that allows large real estate firms to make their illegal projects legal through City Council spot-zoning and spot-planning ordinances, will quickly reappear. 
  • Gentrification resulting from many forms of urban infill, including displacement through projects requiring City Council legislative approvals, will continue until the faucet of foreign investment in Los Angeles real estate finally runs dry. 
  • The magical, trickle down belief that luxury housing produces affordable housing through supply-and-demand and filtering will continue to produce more expensive housing, but nothing more. The rich will have abundant housing, while middle and low-income residents will still continue to double up, live in cars and converted garages, and flee to distant suburbs where developers have raw land to build middle class housing. 
  • The few affordable rental units built after a Measure S defeat will still result from SB 1818 density bonuses. And, the Housing Department will still refuse to inspect any of these affordable units to assure that low-income renters occupy them. 
  • City Planning’s accelerated General Plan updates will slow down, and the Department will continue to prepare and adopt new and updated elements out of sequence. 
  • Developers will continue to select their own EIR consultants, and the City Council will continue to ignore adverse EIR findings through boilerplate Statements of Overriding Considerations. Furthermore, these Statements will still claim that any structure built on near an express bus-line or a mass transit station is automatically transit-oriented. No decision maker will ever request verification of these pie-in-the-sky transit claims.

What liberals who hopped on the no on S campaign wagon should expect

As far as I can determine, your main argument to oppose Measure S was a repetition of the no on S campaign’s major talking point. “Measure S is a housing ban and an affordable housing ban.” 

But, over the last year through my CityWatchLA planning columns and private communications, I have repeatedly asked for the addresses of any affordable housing constructed through the spot-zones and spot-General Plan Amendments stopped by Measure S. During this year only one person gave me an address that checked out. City Planning, however, has (inadvertently?) published the underlying reason for this lack of evidence for the claim that Measure S is an affordable housing ban. 

As I have previously reported, according to City Planning’s CITYWIDE POLICY PLANNING 2016 PERFORMANCE METRIC REPORT, the amount of affordable housing built in LA through discretionary actions is tiny, only two percent of all new housing. Furthermore, developers build this housing through density bonuses when they include 10 to 20 percent low and moderate-income rental units in a market or luxury project. Because this inclusionary zoning process does not require any City Council ordinances, Measure S will leave it intact. 

Second, Measure S is fully consistent with Measures H and HHH. This new supportive housing for the homeless can be constructed on all commercial lots in Los Angeles and R-3 and R-4 lots without any City Council ordinances. This includes parcels owned by the City of Los Angeles. In fact, City Controller Ron Galperin identified 9000 city-owned parcels, and they include over 200 commercial parcels, all of which could become a location for new by-right affordable housing. 

The third reason undermining the alleged no on S affordable housing claim is that private developers can already legally build by-right affordable housing throughout the entire city of Los Angeles. They are not choosing to build this low-priced housing for a simple reason. They can't make enough profit at it. This means the real culprit in LA’s housing crisis is their profit-maximization business model. It has nothing to do with existing zoning or claims they need zone changes to build affordable housing. 

Apparently the organizations and individuals aligning themselves with the big real estate companies opposing Measure S have forgotten a basic feature of large, free-market capitalist cities, like Los Angeles. Housing is a scarce commodity, not a right, under capitalism. Since developers will not build more than a few units through inclusionary zoning, there is an obvious progressive lesson. Either capitalism must change or the public sector must step in to build the low-income housing that the free market cannot and will not build. This was U.S. housing policy from the 1930s to the 1980’s, and the subsequent trickle-down market gimmicks (inherent to no on S) to replace these slashed programs have been an abysmal failure.

Debates about density 

Some liberals have also cast Measure S as a homeowner-driven anti-density campaign.  In their view homeowners want low density because they supposedly financially benefit from it. These liberals are, therefore, opposed to Measure S because they believe it is really a low-density voter initiative to oppose higher densities in Los Angeles. Some even argue that Measure S is a pro-urban sprawl measure. 

But, these claims are not correct. It is a straw man argument, totally misrepresenting the proponents of Measure S before rebutting these imaginary advocates. 

Since 1970 all legally adopted Los Angeles General Plan elements have called for planned density carefully linked to much denser public services and infrastructure, especially mass transit. This adopted vision requires a strong General Plan. City Hall must not only adhere to it, but also apply it to the City's capital and operating budgets. But none of this has happened because real planning is one City Hall’s lowest priorities. Without enormous pressure from below, it does not happen, and this is the open agenda of Measure S. 

Instead, the alternative land use model behind no on S is greater density if it coincidentally appears through in-fill real estate speculation. This model is totally oblique to planned density. It also oblivious to where there is an unmet demand for greater density, as well as the supportive public infrastructure and services to support larger buildings, and more residents, employees, shoppers, and visitors.  

As for who benefits from a defeat of Measure S, many liberal advocates have missed what is right in front of their eyes. It is not tenants, but the large real estate companies and their allied politicians who engage in pay-to-play. As for owners of single-family houses, they have little power in Los Angeles, as revealed by their interminable 11-year campaign to stop mansionization, as well as the closely related campaign against Small Lot Subdivisions.  If homeowners were really in the driver’s seat, these two forms of real estate speculation would have been nipped in the bud long ago, not allowed to fester through one flawed ordinance after another. 

Furthermore, other land use restrictions have the most tenuous relationship to home prices. For example in the late 1980s, AB 283 forced the City of Los Angeles to make sure that its plans and zones were in synch with each other. This resulted in some areas being downzoned, but according to the General Plan Framework Element, there were and still are more than enough parcels in Los Angeles zoned for residential and commercial uses to accommodate all growth scenarios in the entire 21st Century. 

The City Council has also created about 30 Historical Preservation Zones, five Residential Floor Area (RFA) Districts, and many specific plans. But they cover about 15 percent of the residential areas in Los Angeles, and most deal with design review, not zoning restrictions. For that matter, even if the City Council rescinded these overlay zones, as well as all single-family zones, real estate developers would still not build affordable housing. They would simply overbuild expensive houses, such as the luxury high-rises and mid-rises, McMansions, and small lot subdivisions they are already building. Their profit maximization business model is set in stone. 

Next? 

For these reasons and more, the liberal organizations and advocates who attached themselves to big real estate’s no on S campaign should be particularly careful about what they wish for. I have no doubt that their analysis and expectations will soon hit the ground with a loud, trickle-down thud if LA’s voters reject Measure S. 

But if Measure S wins, they will also have a chance to see if the sky is really falling. When it doesn’t, they might even become advocates for a well-planned Los Angeles that will finally tame City Hall’s infatuation with real estate speculation.

 

(Dick Platkin is a former LA city planner who reports on local planning issues in Los Angeles for CityWatch LA. Please send your comments and corrections to [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

Not Your Average Duck

ELECTION PERSPECTIVE--Eric Preven is not your average duck.  

He will upend Eric Garcetti. 

The public will have a chance to compare how the two Erics spend their time. 

They will get to follow Eric Preven as he takes the subway downtown every morning, diligently searches  through the agenda for things that undermine the public interest and then goes to bat for that interest. 

They will get to see the incumbent slapping liens on poor people to raise revenue he lost by inappropriate litigation and then see Eric Preven getting those liens taken off by shaming the Council members in public comment.  

Eric Preven, if in a run-off, would obviously get professionals to help with a real campaign; nonetheless, Eric Garcetti’s war chest of funds becomes unattractive to the public in the face of Eric Preven’s ethos. 

Isn’t Eric Preven a watchdog? That’s different than being a mayor … 

Yes he is a watchdog and frankly that’s a big part of the mayor’s job too. The mayor should be reading every contract etc and vetoing them when appropriate. Eric Preven has been doing that except that he doesn’t have a veto. 

Garcetti has 3 million dollars! He’s unbeatable … 

If Eric got into a runoff, the press would be forced to cover him, and Garcetti would be forced to debate. The need for 3 million dollars becomes less important in that case. 

Does he have the temperament? Being a watchdog is pretty confrontational … 

Yes. Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to have jobs his whole life. And also, again, a mayor needs to be able to stand-up to powerful special interests. 

Even if Eric Preven got into a runoff and didn’t win, a public service will have been done. Eric Preven knows Garcetti’s transgressions well, and the public would get to see them challenged. 

Eric would generate enthusiasm, because he is passionate and an underdog. 

If you think Garcetti is an inevitable win, then vote for Eric Preven to provide him support in his watchdog work. It helps establish legitimacy. 

(Joshua Preven is an educator, a CityWatch contributor and the brother of mayoral candidate Eric Preven.)

-cw

Our Great Online Debate Comes to an End – It’s Now Up to You

PEOPLE POWER-It has been my honor and pleasure to help coordinate your on-line debate. Ken -- and all of us at CityWatch -- thank the candidates and campaigns that participated by submitting videos and accompanying info. If you’ve not checked it out, here’s the LA Election 2017: The Great Online Debate page as of the weekend before the election. 

While many of LA’s candidates (Zuma Dogg, for example) used the free opportunity quickly and wisely, I’m personally not all that happy with the engagement. I’m not sure we met our aims, and I’d like to hear from our readers in anticipation of the next election. 

Is this an idea worthy of further work? How can we make it more engaging? 

When I told him I was writing a final just before Election Day piece, Editor Ken Draper suggested I answer this question: “…why should anyone bother voting in this poor excuse for an election?” 

He went on about the dilemmas facing the LA voter: “…incumbents that have been involved in so-called soft corruption (Sea Breeze, Rick Caruso, etc.); homeless population remaining at 45,000, sidewalks unfixed, trees toppling; jobs are scarce, affordable housing non-existent; crime numbers continue to grow, cops are still shooting mentally disturbed people with pipes in their hands, etc. ... vs. a candidate list that is mediocre at best.” But you know me. I’m just too much of an optimist to go that dark. Plus, I just re-planted seedlings I grew from seed and next week we turn the clocks ahead. If it’s not raining or too cold (below 65 degrees, that is) I’ll attend my first Indivisible meeting tonight. 

And, oh yeah, the page got between 750K and a million hits, he tells me. Oh. 

Just in case anyone cares about my election recommendations, here they are: 

County Measure H:             YES!!! 

City Measure S:                  NO!!! 

Measures M & N:               Yes on M; no on N (this is a consensus opinion of all interested parties -- and me) 

LA Charter Amendment P:  Yes 

Mayor:                              Eric Garcetti 

Controller:                         Ron Galperin 

City Attorney:                    Mike Feuer 

CD 1:                                Gil Cedillo 

CD 3:                                Bob Blumenfield 

CD 5:                                Paul Koretz 

CD 7:                                Karo Torossian 

CD 9:                                Curren Price 

CD 11:                               Mike Bonin 

CD 15:                               Joe Buscaino 

If you’re not convinced about Measure S, I recommend the LA Times editorial and pretty much anything written by the Times about the initiative and its backer. Or read this thorough treatment from Capital & Main, Strange Bedfellows Unite to Stop Anti-Development Ballot Measure in Los Angeles.  

For me, it’s hard to be pessimistic about the future if you spend any time with people under 30. Also, again, I’m retired and living in La Crescenta. Don and I have the beginnings of a small, lovely garden. And a grandchild and his wonderful Mama and Papa in Highland Park. Besides writing here, I’ve covered several meetings of the local Land Use committee for the Crescenta Valley Weekly News and even witnessed community approval of a potentially controversial condo project. Because the developer came to the community and its genuine organizations early and openly, and then listened to real concerns he heard, the sub-development won widespread support. The battered owner will likely have to add more rock to the front of the finished project (not a problem in this rocky foothill.) Still, I anticipate new housing will be built on Foothill Blvd. 

I also covered the passage of a “Safe Haven” resolution by the Glendale Unified School District strongly asserting support for every student without regard to immigration status. The only opposition raised at the packed public hearing was that the language wasn’t strong enough. Many members of the exceedingly diverse community anticipated administrators barring the doors to the schools from INS officials. The discussion was welcoming and supportive; community members produced their own lawn signs, in English, Spanish, and Armenian: “No matter where you are from, we’re glad you’re our neighbor.” 

Community activist Sharon Weisman testified about the signs and their origins: 

Strong, active community support for GUSD’s Resolution No. 17: Reaffirming all GUSD Campuses as Safe Haven for all Students 

This original black-and-white wooden sign (photo left) at Immanuel Mennonite in Harrisonburg, Va., has inspired thousands of yard signs. It was written by Pastor Matthew Bucher and translated with the help of congregation members and friends.   (Courtesy of Immanual Mennonite.)  

In Riverside, my old friend John Russo, former Oakland City Attorney, Alameda City Manager, now the esteemed City Manager of Riverside, announced this week that the City is moving customer service forward even beyond its front desk concierge! Happy or not? (Can you imagine this in Los Angeles City Hall?) 

Our ballots only had one item on them: Los Angeles County Measure H. We voted yes and our ballots are long in the mail. Yours? 

If you vote in Tuesday’s municipal election, you’ll be making history: it is the last city election in an odd year. Vote! Vote! Vote!

 

(Julie Butcher writes for CityWatch and is editor of the CityWatch Great Online Election Debate project, is a retired union leader and is now enjoying her new La Crescenta home and her first grandchild. She can be reached at [email protected] or on her new blog ‘The Butcher Shop - No Bones about It.’) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

Skid Row Voting: It’s Time for President Wesson to Keep His Word and Fix the NC System

SAVING THE SYSTEM-Having read General Jeff’s CityWatch article about online voting for Neighborhood Council elections, it is clear that both sides have a good argument.

From Jeff's perspective, online voting has its challenges. 

But, denying online voting to all of DLTA and Historic Cultural is disenfranchising all of those who do have computers and smart phones and would like to use them to vote. 

I personally believe that in order to have a fair and equitable Skid Row NC election -- since both the DLANC and Historic Cultural all vote -- the following should take place: 

1) Online elections should occur with two weeks advance voting. 

2) Pop-up polls should be pre-designated throughout the three areas. 

3) Vote by mail should be available for anyone who wishes to vote. 

4) Three onsite polling locations should be set up: one in skid row, one in DLANC and one in Historic Cultural. 

5) Since the homeless are not documentation voters, then all three locations should use self-affirmation. 

6) All polling locations should be open for six hours and be centrally located within each of the three districts. 

If there is an issue with the timing being too soon for the above to be instituted, then I think everyone would agree that the elections should be postponed for 60 days. 

As for online voting, here’s my two cents. The reason the beta test was not as big a success as the department wanted is because: 

1) The LA City Council under-funded the entire project, thereby not allowing the department to order and use the equipment that would have streamlined the process. (For the record, the medical marijuana industry uses a system to register patients by IPad using "Indica,” a cloud based service that registers patients in two minutes.) 

2) We were all led to believe that online voting would dramatically increase the number of voters. This is not true. The lack of outreach by DONE, as well as the resistance to spending neighborhood council money by the NC's, led to only 14 of the 35 NC's having an increase in voters -- and the department realizing a less than a couple of hundred voter increase over 2014. This is certainly not what was expected. 

The Skid Row and Hermon elections will also be lackluster if there is no concentrated effort to market the campaign, which DONE is woefully poor at doing; that is under-funded as well. 

As I see it, the Skid Row election is heavily weighted toward Skid Row, having only one polling location, and with the Skid Row Formation Committee responsible for the outreach, which, based on my conversations with both Downtown and Historic Cultural, has been minimal to non-existent. There are claims of falsehoods being told about what was done in areas quoted within the Skid Row application. 

And as for Hermon, my only question to all is the following: 

How do you give $42,000 to an area with less than 3,300 people, when you also give $42,000 to Koreatown that has more than 100,000 people? 

So, something is dramatically wrong with the NC System and it’s time for President Wesson to fulfill his promise to fix it. 

Herb, step up and step in. Make the tough decisions and begin the process of fixing the best thing that could have happened to our City -- as opposed to watching it cave in under its own weight.

 

(Jay Handal served at the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment for ten months as Election Manager for the 2016 Neighborhood Council elections. He is Treasurer of the West Los Angeles Sawtelle Neighborhood Council, Co-Chair of the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates Committee for the upcoming 2016-2017 fiscal year, and a hearing examiner for the Los Angeles Police Commission.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

The Flag Belongs to All of Us

GELFAND’S WORLD--Over the weekend, demonstrators numbering in the hundreds carried out rallies in support of the Trump presidency in several cities. That's not quite at the level of the hundreds of thousands who participated in anti-Trump protests, but we have to concede that the motivation is different. The pro-Trump side isn't spurred by the fear of Trump. (Photo above: Viet Nam war protest.) 

In several of the places where these demonstrations occurred, an approximately equal number of counter-demonstrators showed up in opposition. What's interesting in a morbid sort of way is the response of the pro-Trump side to the anti-Trump side. As news stories reported, the pro Trump groups chanted, "USA, USA" at their opponents. It's nothing new, actually. The right wing has been wrapping itself in the symbolism of American patriotism for a long time now, as if only right wingers are entitled to love their country. 

From the right wing point of view, it's a chance to insult the liberals by suggesting that only right wingers are true patriots. What the right wingers fail to realize is that their action is damaging to the idea of American patriotism because it rules out, if nothing else by insinuation, that anybody to the left of Ronald Reagan can't be a patriot and doesn't love America. 

From the standpoint of national unity, this is potentially disastrous, because it drives a cleft between people who differ mainly on domestic policy. But what happens when all of us, left right and center, have to come together over some major emergency such as a natural disaster or a foreign attack? We managed to do so after the September 11 attacks. Would the nation rally around the Trump administration following a similar attack, considering the contempt that his movement expresses towards the majority of American citizens? Some people would feel free to wash their hands of the whole patriotic thing, considering how they've been taught by the right wing that they can't really be patriotic. 

That chant of USA, USA is obviously meant as a taunt, and a mean-spirited one at that, but it is an illegitimate attack. The right wing is trying to rob its opposition of the symbols of American pride. The proper response to this chant is to chant, "USA, USA" right back at them. Don't let them steal the symbols of democracy from the rest of us. The liberal side should not allow this to happen. 

The current generation of American right wingers either forgets or is too young to know that in the aftermath of the Viet Nam War, overt displays of American patriotism were inhibited to a substantial extent. The chant of USA, USA that we have heard in recent broadcasts of the Olympic Games represents a switch from that previous era. It shows the slow acceptance that the national differences generated by the Viet Nam conflict are largely past us. The USA chant belongs to all of us, even people who just want to root for their team in an international setting. The chant should not be perverted in the service of political malice. If the right wingers had true patriotism, they would be working to create a sense of unity among all Americans, not just among their closest allies. 

Remembering Watergate 

The current situation with regard to Trump's connection to the Russians is eerily reminiscent of the Watergate affair. The older generation remembers how that series of events eventually sorted out. For them, it's like a movie they've already seen. They know that a presidential resignation is the appropriate ending. 

As revelations accumulate, a sense of inevitability isn't quite there yet, but it is building. Right now, it's at the level of it could happen. Trumpgate (or Kremlingate -- what will we finally call it?) is no longer just a low level embarrassment or a minor scandal. The number of top level resignations is building. Attorney General Sessions might as well be numbered as a resignation, considering how his credibility has been destroyed by his own lying. 

We can even expect to be hearing the original Watergate question, "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" A few pundits have already dusted it off. This question is of interest, but may I suggest that it is secondary to the main question: What deal did Donald Trump cut with the Russians prior to the election? 

It's not hard to speculate on a few possibilities. We've already seen and heard Trump's attempts to undercut the Nato alliance and to undermine the Republican platform language on American policy towards Russia. Perhaps those efforts were the result of a (so far) secret deal between Trump and Putin. The other prize for Putin would be a chance to take over Ukraine without American resistance. If Russian aggression in the eastern part of Ukraine escalates, we will have a pretty good idea of whose strings are being pulled. 

A note on the March 7 election 

We're still reeling from the November elections and now we have a city election and ballot measures to deal with. Voter fatigue doesn't begin to describe what isn't happening out there. The mayor is spending huge amounts of money on television ads mainly designed to explain to us that there is an election. That's because March 7 is an odd day for an election. He is also taking credit for bringing filming back. He doesn't mention that it's done using your tax dollars as bribes incentives to the production companies. My mail box is filled each day with slick political ads that I mostly don't read. 

There couldn't be any better argument for moving the city elections to the November time slot. (Hint: We did change that rule, which is why the City Council winners will be elected to terms ending more than five years from now.) 

One thing to remember: All of those television ads and political mailers have to be paid for. It takes lots of campaign donations dollars. This is one reason that real estate developers are so influential in Los Angeles politics. Theoretically we can fix this, but it will take a collection of ballot initiatives. We could write the initiatives and get the signatures we need. We should talk about doing this. 

I figure that we could get the initiatives on the ballot for a million dollars or so -- people who stand in front of your local supermarket with initiative petitions get paid by the signature. It's possible. 

Therefore, may I suggest that in our next Neighborhood Council Congress in September, we have a session on re-imagineering LA city government.

 

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

-cw

Why ABC’s Miniseries ‘When We Rise’ Fell Flat

MEDIA WATCH-The mere fact that Dustin Lance Black’s When We Rise is on the air, even in 2017, is remarkable. Running a seven-hour miniseries covering the LGBT movement is a courageous endeavor for ABC in a time when a significant number of viewers still find its subject matter divisive and offensive at worst, and uninteresting at best. 

This sad fact has provided the creators a unique opportunity to not only entertain, but to also enlighten people who are less tolerant and understanding. And that’s what makes their missteps that much more disappointing. 

A tale that both honors LGBT heroes but also introduces these champions and their causes to the masses, When We Rise has been undermined by uneven writing and direction and, perhaps more important, by a failure to reach across the ideological divide. 

Creator Black is seemingly the right man for the job, having already penned the acclaimed Milk biopic about the legendary San Francisco city supervisor/activist Harvey Milk, for which he won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. His participation gives immediate credibility for those already familiar with the topic. Black could have gone high and introduced his characters by emphasizing robust personalities and their passion and struggles, making them underdogs for whom to root in our age of egregious intolerance. Instead, he goes low. 

Black focuses on three seminal figures in the gay movement, all played by a young actor and then an older one, as they journey to San Francisco and pass through nearly half a century, illuminating a cross section of those fighting for LGBT causes. There is Cleve Jones (Austin P. McKenzie and Guy Pearce), a wide-eyed young Caucasian with model looks who would eventually become a student intern working for Milk, and who was one of the first people to see the assassinated supervisor’s lifeless body. We also watch legendary woman’s rights activist Roma Guy (Emily Skaggs and Mary-Louise Parker), a woman whose radicalism and sexuality are awakened all at once. Rounding out the triptych is Ken Jones (Jonathan Majors and Michael Kenneth Williams) an African-American sailor who went on to become a pioneering activist, but not before having to subjugate his sexuality in the service, deal with racism in both the straight and gay worlds, and endure extreme homophobia in the black community. 

Before Black decides to show these figures and their epic stories of personal struggle, he makes a curious choice: They each appear locked in a libidinous and illicit embrace with a separate lover. It’s a bold creative choice, made rather less profound by the fact that the objects of their lust all look like Abercrombie and Fitch models. Every time things boil over, it’s as if a Bruce Weber doc has suddenly broken out on primetime. To viewers, this comes across as a shocking start for sure, but also emerges as a disservice, a harsh and facile distraction from these heroes’ coming exploits. 

Once the lips and limbs unlock, the 90-minute pilot then follows our triumvirate on its burgeoning journey of private sexuality and public activism. The directing and writing bounces between riveting scenes of societal discomfort and awkward dialogue during activist meetings that is less special and more Afterschool Special. One minute Ken watches in horror as patrons are roughed up as they are forced out of a gay bar in a powerful scene of confusion and chaos, and then the next Cleve watches San Francisco cops beat a gay colleague in a clunky scene right out of a comic book. Speaking of comics, Rosie O’Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg have supporting roles and their broad acting is only obscured by their atrocious coifs, which suggest they shop at the same bad wig shop. 

Meanwhile, the three primary figures hurtle through history until they eventually encounter each other in a convenient and presumptive collision of purpose. It’s so pat, one can almost see the lesson plan passed out in schools across America to accompany screenings of the miniseries. 

Black has said he made this piece for all of America. If that is truly the case, he should have at first focused more on the thorny issues these heroes faced rather than homing in on the horny. When We Rise does to some degree elevate exploits that have far too long remained in the shadows but, sadly, Black wastes the opportunity to have them soar into the collective consciousness where they so rightfully belong.

 

(Alex Demyanenko has created, developed, sold, and produced over 500 hours of television, including close to a dozen hit series and specials. In the past year he has sold shows to multiple networks and has also consulted for companies both in the United States and abroad. This piece was posted most recently at Capital & Main.)  Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

A New Cabal at CalPERS?

EASTSIDER--The good news is that after a lot of external pushback (thank you, LA Times and Naked Capitalism,) the appointed Board members have evidently backed off of trying to get JJ Jelincic bounced off of the CalPERS Board. 

The not so good news is that the leaders of that attempt are being elected to run major committees of the Board. The critical Investment Committee now has Bill Slaton (the ringleader of the group) as Vice-Chair, with the Chair being former LAUSD business manager Henry Jones, who just got re-elected as Vice-President of the Board and openly covets President Rob Feckner’s job. 

The Pension & Health Benefits Committee is now Chaired by Priya Mathur, another of the group who wanted to dump JJ Jelincic, and who has proved her very own self to be ethically challenged in the past. See the article here. 

The Risk & Audit Committee is now headed by yet another appointee, Dana Hollinger, along with fellow appointee Ron Lind. 

Dangling out there are the elections for Chair and Vice-Chair of the all-important Board Governance Committee. They will be elected in March. Those elections will round out the re-election of Rob Feckner as President and Henry Jones as Vice-President back in January. 

Of note, the President and Vice-President are elected by the full Board to one year terms, while the Committee elections are for four year terms

If these elections are indicative of what is to come in March, there is a serious realignment of the Board power structure taking place. And these are the key committees who determine how the fund’s money is invested, as well as being responsible for oversight. 

The CalPERS announcements of these February elections can be found here.  

The Creation of a Cabal? 

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary a cabal is “the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot.” The current restructuring of the Board, together with the increasing secrecy of their work, should give the actual beneficiaries and the public pause. At the risk of being alarmist, I’m starting to think that the not-so-open tenure of Ann Stausboll was a model of transparency compared to the current emerging structure of CalPERS. 

Of course every good conspiracy needs a leader, and my vote is for General Counsel Matthew Jacobs. Readers may recall an article I wrote a while ago about him orchestrating the hiding of the internal workings of the Board behind the attorney-client privilege. You may also recall that this kind of stuff is what got Aetna Insurance Co. in trouble when they faked their reasons for pulling out of Obamacare behind attorney-client privilege and got caught by a judge. 

Let me give you two examples of how this secrecy stuff works. First, we still don’t know who the permanent outside fiduciary counsel is to the Board of Directors, despite my public records requests. Odds are that Ashley Dunning already has the job in all but name, since she and her firm are playing patty-cakes with Matthew Jacobs. But there has still been no public announcement, no public Board discussion that I am aware of, and no methodology given for how or when this will happen. 

What we do know is that she was billing the relatively tiny Marin County Pension Board some $10,000/week, at a $580/hour fee, and she was front and center at the CalPERS retreat in Monterey, providing fiduciary training. Anyone want to take a bet that she already has the job? I wonder how much a huge agency like CalPERS will put in her pockets? 

My second example, has to do with the question of how on earth the Board would approve a $135,000 bonus for their Chief Investment Officer, Ted Eliopoulos, even as the fund made the underwhelming return on investment of 0.6%. That’s right, less than a 1% return on investment. Even as the stock market soared. And even as the Board has had to lower their key anticipated rate of return from 7.5% to 7%, which will result in increased contributions to keep the plan afloat. 

It’s not like Mr. Eliopoulos is some big time investment maven. No, he’s a well-connected political insider. You can read about it here from the well-respected Pensions & Investments website 

For a detailed analysis of what’s in store for the Fund, take a look at a recent article by Calpension’s own Ed Mendel. 

Since there is no rational explanation for this kind of raise based on performance, you have to wonder why the Board approved it. My suspicion is that Mr. Jacobs is quietly providing both the shield and incentives, and is rewarding staff and Board members for toeing the party line according to Mr. Jacobs. 

Anyhow, the result is that Mr. Eliopoulos now makes a cool $700,000 a year or so! Lest you think I jest, check out this article explaining how the bonus was inconsistent with CalPERS policy, in addition to being unwarranted from a performance standpoint. 

This is a big deal. If CalPERS was publicly embarrassed by hiring that sleazebag Florida lawyer Robert Klausner (and they were), why stonewall any public input or openness in the hiring process of his successor? If CalPERS had a terrible year with its investments, why, oh, why would they give their Chief Investment Officer a large and questionably legal bonus? 

With a modicum of openness, transparency and public input, yeah, even public comment at Board meetings, we would know the answers to these questions. 

Their current lineup does not inspire confidence. President Feckner has never failed to sign any press release put in front of him by staff. A prime example would be his remark about Fred Buenstroso’s “retirement,” in 2008, that “he was talking to us for a while about retiring and seeing about doing something else.” Yeah, like going to jail. 

Vice-President Jones is going to play with the General Counsel as he awaits his opportunity to become President. Maybe he can bring us some of that great fiscal wisdom he practiced at the Los Angeles Unified School District. 

The Takeaway 

You don’t have to be a conspiracy buff to see that something is seriously amiss at CalPERS. While it is objectively true that they are under siege over the cost of the pensions and the paltry return on investment that they are achieving, the way to go about addressing these concerns is not to run and hide behind their Attorney. 

And the Board committees are stacked with political appointees. Those same appointees who recently went after the only open and transparent elected Board member, JJ Jelincic. With the whole gang shielded by attorney-client privilege as orchestrated by one Matthew Jacobs. 

Clearly missing is leadership by the newly appointed CEO, Marcie Frost. One can only imagine her trying to get up to speed even as the staff go their own way, the agency is under attack, and her attorney has an agenda of his own. I feel sorry for her. 

At the same time, Marcie Frost is the only hope on the horizon. Coming from the outside (the state of Washington), she does not have the institutional harness of the good ‘ol boy go-along-to-get-along so exemplified by the staff and the Board. 

I hope she knows that the way through tough times is to be open, transparent, admit failures and plan for success. I just hope that she gets the message and is able to do something about what she inherited before something really, really bad happens -- as this is usually the outcome of cabals.

 

(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.

City Council Slams the Brakes On Mansionization in LA

THE CITY--Nearly three years after Councilmember Paul Koretz sponsored a Motion to reform the city’s fatally-flawed citywide mansionization ordinances, the City Council has voted to adopt amendments that go a long way to cutting McMansions down to size.

Despite the passage of the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance (BMO) and Baseline Hillside Ordinance (BHO) in 2008 and 2011 respectively, out-of-scale homes have proliferated in Los Angeles, and the problem has worsened steadily over the last decade.

Mansionization is a citywide problem, and not just because it violates the scale and character of neighborhoods across the city. It also impacts affordable housing citywide. When McMansions replace modest homes, folks get priced out, and the spillover demand drives up prices in less expensive neighborhoods. And so on down the line. It’s like squeezing a balloon.

The amendments passed on Wednesday make major improvements. The basic tool for setting size limits for any structure – residential or commercial – is the ratio of building size to lot size. The ratios vary according to the size and type of lot – urban, suburban, rural, etc.

Small city lots – the so-called R-1 zones that make up about 70 percent of single-family properties in Los Angeles -- have been hardest hit. On these properties, the old ordinance would allow a ratio well above 70 percent, when you factor in bonuses and exemptions. As folks in those neighborhoods can tell you, a 4,350 square foot house on a 6,000 square foot lot deprives its nearest neighbors of air, light, and privacy and blows up the character of the neighborhood.   With a far more sensible ratio and the elimination of bonuses, the limit on that same R-1 lot is now closer to 3,000 square feet – enough for a spacious, modern home that plays nicely with others.

In every category, the amendments reduce the ratios from ridiculous to reasonable. They do away with most bonuses and exemptions, increase setbacks, and curtail grading and hauling allowances in hillside areas. Regrettably, the ordinances still exempt up to 200 square feet of front-facing attached garages from floor space and fall short of a really rigorous standard and transparent process for granting variances to institutions located in residential neighborhoods.

Though imperfect, these ordinances set a firm foundation for a selection of “variation zones” that will allow neighborhoods to tailor regulations to their individual scale and character.   And they provide benefits far beyond the specific neighborhoods where they apply. This kind of meaningful reform sets a strong precedent for many issues that follow, including limiting development in multi-family zones and coming to terms with “small-lot development.”

Success is said to have many fathers. In this case, the Big Daddy is unquestionably Councilmember Paul Koretz. He put the mansionization issue on the table, kept a firm grip on it for almost three years, and engineered a crucial course correction just last December. Councilmember Ryu has also been steadfast in his support, and Council President Wesson stepped up exactly when we needed him most. Through a long, tough slog, city planners kept their wits about them, and hundreds of Angelenos spoke up to promote livable, sustainable neighborhoods.

Mayor Garcetti is expected to sign the measure promptly, and it should take effect some time before March 24. If you’re keeping track, Wednesday, March 1 was a good day in the City of Angels.

(Shelley Wagers is a homeowner, community activist, an expert on Los Angeles’ mansionization crisis and an occasional contributor to CityWatch.

-cw

Is LA Back? Reviews are Mixed!

COMPARE SILICON BEACH, SPACE X VS. 45,000 HOMELESS, 37% ‘CAN’T MAKE ENDS MEET’---With two football teams moving to Los Angeles, a host of towers rising in a resurgent downtown and an upcoming IPO for LA's signature start-up, Snapchat parent Snap Inc., one can make a credible case that the city that defined growth for a half century is back. According to Mayor Eric Garcetti, the Rams, Chargers and the new mega-stadium that will house them in neighboring Inglewood, show that “that this is a town that nobody can afford to pass up.”

And to be sure, Los Angeles has become a more compelling place for advocates of dense urbanism. Media accounts praise the city’s vibrant art scene, its increasingly definitive food scene and urbanist sub-culture. Some analysts credit millennials for boosting the population of the region and reviving the city’s appeal. Long disdained by eastern sophisticates, there’s an invasion from places like New York. GQ magazine called downtown LA “America’s next great city” last year.

Downtown has transformed itself into something of an entertainment district, with museums, art galleries, restaurants, and sports and concert venues. Yet it has not become, like San Francisco or New York, a business center of note. In fact, jobs in the region have continued to move out to the periphery; downtown accounts for less than 5% of the region’s employment, one-third to half the share common in older large cities.

Downtown’s residential growth needs to be placed in perspective. Since 2000 the population of the central core has increased by only 9,500; add the  entire inner ring and the population is up a mere 23,000. Meanwhile over the same span, the L.A. suburbs have added 600,000 residents. Jobs? Between 2000 and 2014, the core and inner ring, as well as older suburbs, lost jobs, U.S. Census data show, while newer suburbs and exurbs added jobs.

In our most recent ranking of the metro areas creating the most jobs, Los Angeles ranked a mediocre 42nd out of the 70 largest metro areas; San Francisco ranked first. That’s well behind places like Dallas, Seattle, Denver, Orlando, and even New York and Boston, cities that we once assumed would be left in the dust by LA.

A New Tech Hub?

The emergence of Snap has led some enthusiasts to predict LA’s emergence as a hotbed of the new economy. And to be sure, there is a growing tech corridor in the Santa Monica-Marina area that may gradually gain critical mass (see graphic above). Talk of a growing confluence between tech and entertainment content -- the signature LA product -- and the proliferation of new entertainment venues, could position the area for future growth. At the same time, the presence of Elon Musk’s Space X in suburban Hawthorne, near LAX, has excited local boosters.

Yet despite these bright spots, Los Angeles’ current tech scene is almost piteously small. One consistent problem is venture capital. Despite the massive size of its economy, and huge population, Los Angeles garners barely 5% of the nation’s venture capital, compared to 40% for the Bay Area, 10% for New York and Boston. Companies that were born in LA often end up moving elsewhere, like virtual reality pioneer Oculus, which was frog marched to the Bay Area after being acquired by Facebook.

Indeed, despite bright spots like Snap, since 2001 STEM employment in the LA metro area has been flat, in sharp contrast to high rates of job growth in the San Francisco Bay Area, Austin, Houston and Dallas, and the 10% national increase. Tech employment per capita in the LA area hovers slightly below the national average, according to a recent study I conducted at Chapman University. Los Angeles County, once the prodigious center of American high-tech, is also now slightly below the national average of engineers per capita.

The Poverty Economy

The regional economy, notes a recent Los Angeles Development Corporation report, continues to produce largely numbers of low-wage jobs, mostly in fields like health, hospitality and services. Sixty percent of all new jobs in the area over the next five years will require a high school education or less, the report projects.

At the same time in the year ending last September, employment dropped in three key high-wage blue collar sectors: manufacturing, construction and wholesale trade notes the EDC The largest gains were in lower-wage industries like health care and social assistance, hospitality and food service.  Since 2007 Los Angeles County has 89,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, which pay an average of $54,000, but 89,000 more in food service that pay about $20,000. No surprise more than one out every three LA households have an income under $45,000 a year.

All this works well for the people who are increasingly coming to enjoy LA’s great restaurants, hipster enclaves and art venues. The football teams will add to this mixture, offering employment selling peanuts, popcorn and hot dogs to generally affluent fans in the stands.

Yet low wages could prove catastrophic in a region that lags only the Bay Area in housing costs. Some 45,000 are homeless throughout the metro area, concentrated downtown but spreading throughout the region all the way to Santa Ana, in the south. Housing prices have risen to five times median household income, highest in the nation and more than twice the multiple in New York, Chicago, Houston or Dallas-Ft. Worth. LA leads the nation’s big metro areas in a host of other negative indicators, including the percentage of income spent on housing, overcrowding and homelessness. A city which once epitomized middle class upward mobility is increasingly bifurcated between a wealthy elite, mostly Anglo and Asian, and a largely poor Latino and African-American community.

A recent United Way study, for example, found that 37% of LA families can barely make ends meet, well above the 31% average for the state; the core city’s south and east sides have among the largest concentrations of extreme poverty in the state. Once a beacon for migrants from all over America, LA now has a similarly high rate of mass out-migration as New York. But unlike New York, where immigrants continue to pour in, newcomers to the U.S. are increasingly avoiding Los Angeles – it had the lowest growth in its immigrant population of any major metropolitan area over the past decade. Perhaps even more revealing, the Los Angeles area has endured among the largest drops in the number of children since 2000, notes demographer Wendell Cox,  more than New York, Chicago and San Francisco.

Altered DNA

The writer Scott Timberg notes that LA’s middle class, was once “the envy of the world.” L.A. used to be a place where firemen, cops and machinists could own houses in the midst of a great city. Dynamic, large aerospace firms, big banks and giant oil companies sustained the middle class.

But the city has lost numerous major employers over the years, most recently longtime powerhouse Occidental Petroleum, and the U.S. headquarters of both Toyota and Nestle. The regional aerospace industry, which provided nearly 300,000 generally high-wage jobs in 1990, is now barely a third that size. High housing cost have devastated millennials, whose home ownership rate has dropped 30% since 1990, twice the national average.

Many urbanists hail the emergence of a transit-oriented, dense city. Since 1990, Los Angeles County has added seven new urban rail lines and two exclusive busways at the cost of some $16 billion. Yet ridership on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority rail and bus services is now less than its predecessor Southern California Rapid Transit District bus services in 1985, before any rail services were opened. The share of work trips on transit in the entire five-county Los Angeles metropolitan region, has also dropped, from 5.1% in 1980 and 4.5% in 1990 to 4.2% in 2015. Meanwhile the city endures the nation’s worst traffic.

Some longtime Angelenos are mounting a fierce ballot challenge -- known as Measure S – to slow down ever more rapid densification. The ballot measure would bar new high-density construction projects for the next two years. “The Coalition to Preserve LA,” which is funding the measure, claims to be leading in the polls for the March 7 vote, but faces well-financed opposition from politically connected large developers, Mayor Garcetti, both political parties, virtually the entire city council, and much of the academic establishment. The LA Times denounced Proposition S as a “childish middle finger to City Hall” and its architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne, has urged the citizenry “to move past the building blocks of post-war Los Angeles, including the private car, the freeway, the single-family house and the lawn.”

Proposition S proponents include many neighborhood and environmental groups, as well progressives and conservatives, including former Mayor Richard Riordan. The people controlling Los Angeles may dream of being the “next” New York but many residents, notes longtime activist Joel Fox, “are tired of the congestion and development and feel that more building will only add to congestion.”

Renewing La La Land

Of course, slowing or banning development by popular proposition is probably not the ideal  way to get control over the deteriorating situation. Yet it is clear that the current trajectory towards more dense housing is not addressing the city’s basic problems. Los Angeles, as the movie “La La Land” so poetically portrays, remains a “city of dreams” but that mythology is clearly being eroded by a delusional desire to be something else.

In my old middle-class neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley, heavily populated by people from the creative industry, the worsening congestion, the upsurge of ever taller buildings and ever more present homeless did not reflect the giddiness of “La La Land.”

Yet despite all these problems, Los Angeles has the potential to make a great comeback. It has a dispersed urban form that allows for innovation and diversity, and an unparalleled physical location on the Pacific Rim. Its ethnic diversity can be an asset, if somehow it can generate higher wage employment to stop the race to the bottom. The basics are all there for a real resurgence, if the city fathers ever could recognize that the City of Angels needs less a new genome but should build on its own inimitable DNA.

(Joel Kotkin is executive editor of New Geography … where this analysis was first posted. He is the Roger Hobbs Distinguished Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University and executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism. He lives in Orange County, CA.)

-cw

Kindness: So Little Left

THE CHAPMAN REPORT--She watched him for five minutes, the man with his dog sitting outside on a Starbucks patio, on a bitter cold day in Napa. No one else was there.   

‘He wasn’t bothering anybody,’ she said. He didn’t ask for money. He didn’t stand in front of retail doors. He was just sitting quietly and she was fairly sure he was homeless, cold and hungry. In a snap decision, she bought him a bowl of sweet and sour chicken with noodles from the next door Panda King to brighten the man’s day. 

It was meant to be a cup of kindness, but for her, it wound up more like a slap in the face. The man accepted the food, blessed her and said how very grateful he was that someone recognized his plight. 

The trouble came afterward, when Jen – whose much more like my daughter than my friend – walked into the Starbucks to order a cup of java so she could study for school. Jen, 33, had recently moved up from Bakersfield where she worked at a popular bakery and had since successfully broken into the Napa food industry. Originally, she was from Los Angeles and quite familiar with the fact that the county has nearly 47,000 homeless and in her mind such folks deserved at the very least food. It appears voters in the city of Los Angeles—where the homeless population has surged and poured onto our streets and sidewalks and neighborhoods – agreed something must done. In November, voters approved a $1.2 billion measure to build homeless housing … way over the margin of votes that were necessary.  

So, she didn’t really expect what happened next when she decided to get a cup of coffee at Starbuck’s. 

As she came forward to order, the Starbuck’s employee at the register announced she really hated when people fed the homeless. Jen’s face burned. It didn’t stop there however. When the employee came out to wash down the tables, the slap continued. When people feed the homeless, the employee muttered, “then they never go away.” Jen nearly gasped with disbelief. It became quiet in the Starbucks and other customers appeared nervous and uncomfortable. No other employees advised the worker to stop and it seemed an odd attitude for a Starbuck’s since the socially conscious company headquartered in Seattle has gone out of its way to embrace the homeless.  

Jen’s face turned red with anger. If you knew the fabric of this woman you’d understand why. Kindness seems threaded in her very heart and then some.  “I knew she was talking about me,” Jen said. “I was offended. It’s not like I was giving him drugs and alcohol. All I was giving him was food. It was so rude.”  

She fed him, she said, because: “I just felt deep inside I needed to help him.”  

It’s not the story Reggie Borges, a Starbuck’s spokesman in Seattle, wanted to hear after he had just returned from Austin, Texas where his company launched an expansion of its “food share” program this month to Houston and San Antonio.   

The program, suggested by its very own partners (employees), donates Starbuck’s surplus food to local agencies that feed the homeless and the company has set a goal to donate all its extra food to local non-profit agencies from its 7,000 U.S. stores. Surplus ready-meals are already served up to the impoverished Starbuck’s style in Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, Denver, Las Vegas and Colorado Springs with a goal of reaching 50 million such meals a year. 

When Borgess called the Soscol Avenue store in Napa, no employees could remember such an incident. But if it happened, he added, it’s not the way Starbuck’s would want any customer treated, even a homeless customer. 

“We strive to create a culture of warmth and belonging, where everyone is welcome.,” he emailed. “We want everyone who visits our store in enjoy their visit,” and that includes homeless.  

He added that he hopes to work with the customer to discuss her concerns.  

I know some of you out there are howling that Jen should never have fed that man. He doesn’t deserve it. He’s not working. Others of you are probably saying it really hurts businesses and customers don’t want homeless outside stores. I get that. I get that it can hurt small, local business, especially a mom and pop. Because I’ve had a fair amount of dealings with those living on the streets, I’ve decided not to give money any more but I will buy food and a cup of coffee. 

If it’s a small local business, I will typically ask first if it’s alright because those are the retailers that suffer the most. A place like Starbuck’s and most chain retail stores don’t lose much business if the homeless are standing outside. Hundreds of people pour into the Napa Starbucks on Soscol Avenue every day. I’ve seen it. It would take a lot more than feeding a homeless person to divert them.  

“You can’t blame Starbucks for one bad person,” my cousin warned. I agree, but you can give better training and perhaps explain it’s not wise not to reprimand a customer for doing what many would consider a good deed.  

Personally, I’m glad Jen went with her gut. Perhaps that particular day that man was so troubled he didn’t know what to do next. There’s no doubt our streets have become a torrent of homeless infiltrating our sidewalks and our roadways, setting up tents, begging for money and accosting customers looking for a hand out. But can you really blame them? It’s what I’d do if I found myself on the streets. What do you think you would do? If we keep closing our eyes, they’ll still be there when we wake up. Doing nothing won’t work. 

The National Bureau of Economic Research, reported that unemployment rose from 4.7 percent to ten and over eight million jobs were lost from Nov. 2007 to Oct. 2009, “the most dramatic since the Great Depression.”  

We still see the ugly residue of this more-than-belt-tightening time. Many are still without work. 

One day, another friend and I left a small diner in San Pedro where an older woman, shriveled and weathered, bustled up to us in search of money or food. We didn’t have change, but as were walking away my friend turned and said: “I have this half sandwich I haven’t even touched. Would you like it?”
 
The women quickly shunted up to us and took the sandwich. We turned back to look at her gobbling it down with a look of such satisfaction. She glowed as though she has just finished a six-course dinner.   

So, I applaud what my friend did. It’s time for all of us to wake up and offer a cup of kindness. It seems sometimes there’s so little left.

.
(Diana Chapman is a writer/journalist and an occasional CityWatch contributor. She has written for magazines, newspapers and the best-seller series, “Chicken Soup for the Soul.” You can reach her at: [email protected].)

-cw

LA Sentinel Throws Up a Smoke Screen for Councilman Price on the Bigamy Mystery

@TheGussReport -- On Monday night, CityWatch published my article based on public records that suggest Los Angeles City Councilmember Curren D. Price was simultaneously married to two different women. The next day, the Los Angeles Sentinel newspaper published a statement attempting to refute my story, but misled its readers in numerous ways.  

The Sentinel article wrongfully or misleadingly alleges:

  1. “Mr. Price’s opponents apparently tried to muddy the waters in a last minute smear campaign.”

The article is the result of my own research and writing, and it was seen by nobody other than me prior to submitting it to my publisher. I have never met Mr. Price’s opponent, Jorge Nuño (who the LA Times endorsed over Price), nor anyone else from his campaign or family at any time. In fact, a few weeks earlier, I publicly pressured Mr. Nuño to identify his stances on various ballot issues in next week’s primary, until his campaign manager publicly requested that I cease, which I did.

  1. “As of Sentinelpress time no factual data has been produced to show that the councilmember has done anything wrong.”

That’s because at no time prior to publishing its statement did anyone from the Sentinel contact me in any way, shape or form to ask for proof, or anything else for that matter. Subsequent to its publishing, I sent Sentinel Publisher Danny Bakewell and its Managing Editor Brandon Brooks two emails letting them know that nobody from their publication contacted me, and that the documentation is free and readily available online. I also posted two comments on their website below the text of their statement. The Sentinel responded to none of them.

  1. The Sentinel quotes Albert Robles, the attorney who handled Mr. Price’s divorce efforts, “Curren Price is divorced, end of story.  I was Curren Price’s attorney, my office filed the paperwork.  As far as Curren Price is concerned, his divorce was settled years ago and that’s what was communicated to Mr. Price at the time.  I am no longer Curren Price’s attorney…”

According to Los Angeles court records, Mr. Price’s divorce is “pending,” (i.e. not finalized) and has been in that status since it was taken off-calendar on April 17, 2012.   On May 1, 2012, Mr. Robles was sent, and the court record contains, a notice by the court that the divorce dissolution was rejected. As of yesterday, the case is still pending and there has been no further activity in that file since May 1, 2012. The court records also show no new divorce filings from Mr. Price. Moreover, the record contains no withdrawal from Mr. Robles of his representation of Mr. Price, so while he says he is no longer his attorney, the record reflects otherwise.

Note: According to the California Bar Association, Mr. Robles was ineligible to practice law in California in 2014 for not complying with attorney continuing education requirements, and again less than a year later in 2015 for not paying his Bar Association dues.   He is presently licensed to practice, and bills himself as “The Best Eviction Attorney in California.”

I made numerous efforts to reach Messrs. Bakewell, Brooks and Robles to see if any of them could furnish proof that Mr. Price was, in fact, divorced, and received no reply from any of them. The Sentinel story remains on its website, with no updates to its content.

So let’s cut to the chase.

This is a 2013 article in which Del Richardson Price, Mr. Price’s second wife, discusses her chronic health condition. In it, she refers to a 2009 incident and references her husband….Curren Price.   But if Mr. Price was married to Del Richardson as of 2009, and he was still trying to divorce his first wife, Lynn, as late as 2012, it not only means he was married to two women simultaneously, it means he knew he was still married to Lynn, his first wife, when he married Del Richardson. It would also mean that Mr. Price (according to public records) is still married to both women.

Based on that information, this is bigamy, and it was committed by Mr. Price with knowledge aforethought. And if Del Richardson Price knew that she was marrying an already married man (there is no evidence to show that that is the case) it would mean that she, too, committed bigamy.

Finally, on Mr. Price’s Los Angeles City Ethics forms, which he has signed under penalty of perjury each year since 2012, he was required to identify any financial holdings of his or his spouse’s. In 2012, he identified no spouse. In each subsequent year, he identified only Del Richardson as his spouse. Since Mr. Price knew that he was still married to first wife Lynn, as evidenced by his unsuccessful divorce filings as late as 2012 (i.e. the same year he signed his first Ethics Form 700) it means that he perjured himself on each Ethics form he submitted by not including his first wife and her financial interests on each them.

It’s bigamy. It’s perjury. So say the records. Why is all of this so important? Because, these days more than ever, with our elected officials, what could be more important than trust?

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a contributor to CityWatch, KFI AM-640, Huffington Post and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @TheGussReport. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.)

-cw

Shakedown … or Developers’ Cost of Doing Business in LA?

RANTZ & RAVEZ-It has been a practice in some parts of the country and here in Los Angeles to “shakedown” developers when residents or homeowner groups oppose specific residential or commercial projects adjacent to their neighborhoods. This happened in the San Fernando Valley when a commercial project was proposed and a lawsuit filed demanding modifications to the project. 

In this case, the developer made a number of modifications to the development and paid “fees” to move forward with the project that is in full operation at this time. A development project on the Westside that became a recent news story culminated with a large amount of money given to an adjacent condo building as well as modifications to the proposed project. 

The cost of doing business as a developer in Los Angeles is getting more and more complex and expensive due to associated city fees and related expenses. In addition to the community groups and homeowner associations voicing their concerns, there is the threat of litigation. All this does is drive up the expense of building residential construction resulting in higher rents, forcing more and more families to turn to the streets to live. Truly a sad situation in the City of the Angels. 

Los Angeles River as the Flood Control protection. 

With all the talk about turning the Los Angeles Flood Control System into the Los Angeles River Development we must consider the heavy rains that happen in our city. While the rains are infrequent, I can remember years ago when it rained for numerous days and the Flood Control System did the job of protecting Los Angeles from flooding. Being a new member of the LAPD at that time, I remember the damage caused by the heavy rains. There were landslides in various areas of the city and caskets that were unearthed in the foothill community. With this in mind, we need to remember what the Los Angeles River was initially designed for. Before we spend millions or billions of dollars building developments along the river, we need to remember the intended purpose of the Flood Control System that has been effective in protecting Los Angeles and surrounding communities for many years. 

LA…one of two cities still in the running for the Olympics. 

As the days pass, Los Angeles remains in the running along with Paris for the 2024 Olympics. If LA is selected to host the games, there will be plenty of activities for residents to enjoy. The estimated $5.3 billion dollar budget will push prime ticket event prices to $1,700 while the less popular activities are expected to run in the range of $30 to $50. If you are interested in being an observer, there will be plenty of security and other positions available. The LA 2024 Summer Olympics organizers are currently accepting applications from those interested in volunteering for the games. 

LAPD to the rescue. 

The Metro Board of Directors has approved a transfer of police powers from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to the LAPD for transit security within the City of Los Angeles. The Sheriff’s Department had the responsibility for all Metro Transit operations throughout the county prior to the transfer. The Long Beach Police Department will assume responsibility for Metro operations in the city of Long Beach. The Sheriff’s Department will patrol all other Metro lines in the region.    

You may wonder where the LAPD Officers will be coming from. Since the LAPD still cannot reach its authorized strength of 10,000 officers to patrol our communities and fight crime, the answer is very simple. Deploy the officers on overtime. Yes, overtime. With most LAPD Officers working either 12- or 10-hour shifts, in addition to appearing in court and the drive to work, when will they rest? I know that many officers will enjoy the extra money that will come along with these overtime details. With their salary and living expenses, overtime money comes in handy for them and their families. I am just concerned that they don’t burn out with all the hours they will be working. When you see an LAPD officer on the Metro Lines, stop and thank them for the protection they are providing you, Metro operators and your families.         

Measure S. 

The March 7 local primary election will be lucky to draw 20% of the voters. People are burned out from the recent Presidential election. The Democrats are not happy with the victory of President Donald Trump as evidenced by the demonstrations that have been taking place. With this in mind, the low Republican registration in Los Angeles does not drive many to the election booth. I encourage you to take the time and vote on the other matters on the ballot. There are measures with will cost you more money and you should be concerned with that.

I am supporting Measure S and opposing Measure H. 

If you are happy with the traffic gridlock in Los Angeles and streets that are not being paved and the water pipes that are bursting causing sinkholes, then vote against S. On the other hand, if you are like me, you are sick of the 7-day a week gridlock throughout this region and tired of having streets that are falling apart, vote Yes on S. With little if any senior or affordable housing being built, it is time for us to voice our concern for the neglect that has been taking place in Los Angeles. Don’t believe that all construction will come to a stop if measure S is passed. There are hundreds of projects that have already been approved for construction in Los Angeles and will be built in the next two years. 

While the homeless situation has not improved with the $1.2 billion bond measure, Measure H will only add more taxes to your purchases in Los Angeles County. The homeless situation will not be improved by passing more and more tax measures. It is not always about taking money out of your pocket to fix the problems that have been neglected for years.

 

(Dennis P. Zine is a 33-year member of the Los Angeles Police Department and former Vice-Chairman of the Elected Los Angeles City Charter Reform Commission, a 12-year member of the Los Angeles City Council and a current LAPD Reserve Officer who serves as a member of the Fugitive Warrant Detail assigned out of Gang and Narcotics Division. Zine was a candidate for City Controller last city election. He writes RantZ & RaveZ for CityWatch. You can contact him at [email protected]. Mr. Zine’s views are his own and do not reflect the views of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

Tech Biz Booming in LA … At City Hall, Not So Much

GELFAND’S WORLD--Last Friday, the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (sbccog) held its 18th Annual General Assembly. The assembly is a chance for city managers, elected officials, and the general public to hear some new ideas and chew over old problems. This year, the SBCCOG chose to take up an optimistic topic, the promise of innovative technologies in making the region both more livable and more wealthy. 

Techno-fixes for transportation 

This being the Los Angeles area, one topic was obvious: What's new in transportation? The subject the organizers chose for discussion was driverless cars. There are numerous advantages to the idea, along with a substantial hurdle. Actually, the advantages and the hurdle to be surmounted go together. You can't have one without the other. 

Here they are: 

The hurdle is that you really need to have every car on the road (and pretty much every other object that can move) under constant centralized control. The buzz word is totally managed systems. Maybe it's a buzz phrase instead of a buzz word, but it carries a heavy load of futuristic thinking. We'll get back to what some of that load entails a little later, but it's worth considering the advantages. 

Engineers who think about getting the most use out of driverless cars like to think of a substantial group of the m all moving together, going in the same direction, all at the same time. The buzz word for this grouping of cars is a platoon. There are several advantages to platooning our cars, if we could do it safely. For one, cars can move at high speed without a lot of separation. Instead of separations in the dozens or hundreds of feet, a platoon of electronically controlled driverless cars could be separated from each other by a few inches. Even if you give them a foot or two, that's putting a lot more cars on the same section of pavement. 

There is one more advantage that didn't come up at the meeting, but it's obvious if you think about it. Imagine sitting in a long line of cars at a traffic light. When the light turns green, do you start forward immediately? Not if you don't want to run into the car in front of you, you don't. You have to wait for the first car to move, then the second car to get moving, and so on. It would be a lot quicker if we could all start moving at the same time, the way that train cars all move together. But that would involve every driver in the line starting to move forward at exactly the same time. It would also require that we increase our speed in exactly the same increments. If I go two miles per hour too fast, I'll run into the car in front of me. 

Computerized control systems have it over us humans in terms of this level of control. Electronic signals move faster than our nerve impulses, and electronic computers calculate faster than our brains can. 

By the way, the sbccog program didn't seem to notice that when we imagine platoons of driverless vehicles all moving in tandem, able to execute speed-ups and slow-downs with precision, we are probably imagining that the vehicles are propelled by some electrical means rather than gasoline engines. For gasoline powered cars, there is a distinct lag in getting a car moving forward upon pushing down on the accelerator pedal, and every car is a little different. The way to solve this problem is to have speed sensors that control the movement of the cars with exquisite precision, which could be accomplished using electric motors. In this way, a platoon of fifty cars could move together as if they were all cars on the same train. 

There are also distinct advantages in terms of parking and storing driverless cars. You can drop your car at the garage, and it can be stored alongside other such cars, all of them parked only inches apart. You don't need to leave room to open the car door. The garage space can also be built with lower ceilings. All in all, we might imagine a doubling or tripling of the parking capacity for every square foot of ground. One speaker joked about not needing to park your car (and pay for parking) at all. Just send it by itself on a trip down the freeway so that it returns when you are ready to go. After all, it doesn't need a driver. 

Long-time readers of this column may notice that the concept of the driverless car is similar in a lot of ways to the concept of personal rapid transit (PRT). The idea behind PRT is that individual passenger pods travel along elevated guide rails. Both concepts involve a system in which a computerized system controls every aspect of moving, changing directions, and stopping. The PRT system has the advantage that you don't have to take over streets and highways. It's hard to imagine us driving our old gas-burners on the same road with a platoon of driverless vehicles moving like the proverbial bat out of Hell. For any roadway, it's the one or the other, not both. 

The disadvantage of the PRT network is that you have to build the elevated structures and supply the passenger pods. That is costly, although projected to be considerably cheaper than light rail. 

The disadvantage of the driverless vehicle concept is that the vehicles themselves will be costly (although not necessarily a lot more costly than a new car) and the roadway itself will be costly. The PRT system might turn out to be a lot cheaper, although it would be less versatile in terms of covering an entire city in dense detail. 

Municipal Fiber Optic Broadband 

Another topic at the sbccog was the idea of cities putting in their own digital broadband capability. That means that you can get high speed internet and all that this entails, including full speed, full sized movie downloads or high throughput data transmission for your business. The buzz word is fiber optic. It's a method of carrying information that has been around a long time, but has only recently started to be adopted in the U.S. as a way of connecting the internet to the end user. 

The term fiber optic sounds more complicated than it really is. A beam of light can carry information in the same way that a radio wave or television signal carries information. But the ray of light can carry a lot more information. Thousands of times more. Instead of copper wire or radio waves, fiber optics carry light down strands of glass. When the light reaches its destination, it can be decoded into electrical signals and sent to your computer or television set. 

We've come to refer to the ability to carry digital information as bandwidth. The ability to carry a lot of information is therefore called broadband. The thing is, current methods of internet service are mostly using outmoded systems. The same coaxial cable that carries your cable tv signal can also carry a modest amount of internet information, but even cable systems are becoming inadequate pretty quickly. That's because the need for bandwidth is increasing. High definition video and lots of other applications use up bandwidth. Also, when you are hooked up to a cable system, you are sharing bandwidth with all the other houses and apartments and businesses that are connected to the cable. 

The problem with relying on local cable and telephone companies for broadband is that they have been slow in upgrading, when they do it at all. They have a stranglehold on their own part of the market, and they don't think they have to improve a lot. Where I live, the telephone company is already a couple of generations behind in technology. The cable tv company is . . . a cable tv company, with all that this implies. 

What we learned at SBCCOG is that some cities have developed their own fiber optic broadband systems. We don't typically think of Chattanooga, Tennessee as a leader in high tech growth, but in terms of providing broadband to its residents, Chattanooga is way ahead of Los Angeles. Likewise for Ammon, Idaho. 

Another place that is working on getting fiber optic broadband installed is Santa Monica. City Manager Rick Cole (previously Deputy Mayor in charge of budgeting for the city of Los Angeles) spoke about it in detail. Cole spoke of Santa Monica's ambition to be Silicon Beach. Broadband internet is part of that process. 

The city of Los Angeles is way behind. It's worth thinking about municipal fiber optics for the entire region. We can expect the cable companies to resist mightily, with all that implies in the Los Angeles political environment, but the fight with their lobbyists to get us up to par with other areas would be worth it.

 

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

-cw

The Golden State of Hate: California’s Extremist Roots Run Deep

CAPITAL & MAIN SPECIAL REPORT--On election night last November, Nathan Damigo, a 30-year-old white nationalist and student at California State University, Stanislaus, met up with friends in the Northern California city of Folsom. As they bounced from bar to bar, it became clear that Donald Trump was outperforming most polls; when the election was called for the former reality TV star, Damigo and his buddies were euphoric. On the drive home, still buzzed by the victory, Damigo pulled out a bullhorn and shouted at passersby in the street, presumably those with darker skin than his, “You have to go back! You have to go back!” 

“Trump’s election has been a major boost to morale,” he later told an interviewer. “Something is happening. Things are changing and it’s not going to stop.” 

Damigo is part of an ascendant far-right movement, however uncoordinated, that sees the election of Trump as a sign that an extremist vision for the country -- which includes millions of undocumented immigrants deported and an open hostility to Muslims -- is moving from dream to reality. And this is not only about rhetoric. Since Trump’s election, groups that track hate crimes have reported spikes in the number of incidents, including within the deeply blue state of California. 

Damigo grew up in San Jose, joined the Marine Corps after graduating from high school, and completed two tours in Iraq. He returned with post-traumatic stress disorder and in 2007, after an afternoon of heavy drinking in San Diego, pulled a gun on a cabdriver who he believed was Iraqi, robbing him of $43. He pleaded guilty to a felony count of robbery and spent five years behind bars, where he discovered former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke’s autobiography, My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding. Last March, he founded a group called Identity Evropa, geared towards attracting college students to white nationalism, a broad term whose adherents espouse white separatist ideologies. 

Damigo has positioned himself as a sort of a West Coast sibling to Richard Spencer, the 38-year old who coined the term “alt-right” and who has become the country’s most prominent white supremacist, due in part to a video of him being punched by a presumed protester that went viral.

The pair appeared together at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where Damigo live-streamed the event for Red Ice Radio, a white supremacist network broadcasting from Sweden. And last November, two-dozen members of Identity Evropa traveled to Washington, DC for Spencer’s National Policy Institute conference, at which many attendees were seen flashing the Nazi salute. 

When I reached out, Damigo emailed that he was on the East Coast in an area with limited cellphone coverage. Curious, I scanned Identity Evropa’s Twitter feed. Posted from early that morning were pictures of the group’s flyers plastered across the campus of Kutztown University, in rural Pennsylvania. The effort is part of “Project Siege,” which targets colleges with pro-white propaganda. A day earlier, the provost of Indiana University reported that the group’s flyers were posted on the office doors of faculty members of color. Also hit were schools in Illinois, Texas, Georgia and Virginia. 

“Our members tend to be whites from diverse areas, because they have actual experience with multiculturalism,” he tells me over Skype. Damigo keeps his blond hair in the “Hitler youth” style -- longer on top, shaved on the sides -- and on the day we speak is wearing a black sweater and looks tired. Asked for an example of a problem caused by multiculturalism, Damigo pauses a beat. “You know, black people constantly being dicks to white people, starting fights with them, harassing them.” His answer to what he sees as the problem of multiculturalism, which he views as inherently anti-white, is as simple as it is quixotic: the creation of a white ethno-state for Americans of European descent. (Damigo doesn’t consider Jews to be white, and they are barred from joining his group. Asked recently about whether the Holocaust occurred, he declined to answer, stating that he’s “not a history buff.”) 

Damigo says that the majority of Identity Evropa’s members are in California, but he dreams of taking his group, which he describes as “Identitarian,” national. “A lot of people started becoming interested in politics a year ago,” he says. “They knew something was wrong but didn’t quite get what. Advocating for whites is going to become normalized: People are waking up to subjects that were once very taboo.” Damigo first told me that over the past five months, Identity Evropa had signed up about five new members a day, which comes to roughly 750 members. A couple of days later, however, he estimated the membership at 300. 

He likens the white nationalist movement to the early years of the gay rights movement. “Back then, if someone was homosexual and came out, they would be dealing with chronic unemployment and ostracism. We’re dealing with the same thing.” But he tells me that he sees signs that change may be on the way, accelerated by the election of Trump. “It’s starting to snowball.” 

California is like America, only more so,” said novelist Wallace Stegner, echoing journalist Carey McWilliams’ earlier opinion that “Californians are more like the Americans than the Americans themselves.” California, McWilliams continued, “is the great catch-all, the vortex at the continent’s end into which elements of America’s diverse population have been drawn, whirled around.” 

The state is solidly liberal, with political leaders who have promised to resist Trump’s agenda.

“California is not turning back,” Governor Jerry Brown declared last January in his State of the State address. “Not now, not ever.” When San Francisco International Airport erupted in protest after Trump signed his executive order targeting Muslims, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom was there, shaking hands in the crowd and registering his dissent. And a week after Trump signed another sweeping executive order -- this one stepping up enforcement actions against undocumented immigrants-- the state took its first steps to create a “sanctuary state,” which would prohibit the state and its localities from enforcing federal immigration laws. 

Yet California also has a rich history of right-wing extremism, xenophobia and racism, which it has exported, with varying degrees of success, to the rest of the country. Perhaps the best example is Proposition 187, which was overwhelmingly passed by voters in 1994. The law was drafted in part by a lobbyist with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an organization that seeks to severely curtail immigration to the U.S. and whose founder, John Tanton, believes that the U.S. must remain a majority-white state. FAIR is designated as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which defines the term as a group with “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” 

(Left, undated photo of KKK march, possibly taken in Santa Barbara.) 

Proposition 187 prevented undocumented immigrants from receiving most tax-supported benefits, including medical care at publicly funded hospitals and the use of public schools. (It was immediately challenged in court and eventually declared unconstitutional.) Less remembered is that Prop. 187 also compelled all law enforcement agents and school officials to investigate the immigration status of individuals they believed might be in the country illegally, and to refer such individuals to both federal immigration agencies and the state attorney general. It was the mother of all anti-immigrant bills, from SB 1070 in Arizona to HB 56 in Alabama, a specter that continues to haunt our country as a new wave of raids takes shape. 

Anti-immigrant and anti-Mexican sentiments go back much further than the mid-1990s, of course. For the first half of the last century, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans were forcibly segregated into second-class schools and shunted into fieldwork. When they attempted to organize for higher wages, they were met with violence from the state, surveilled by sprawling private spy networks or simply deported. Business owners posted “White Trade Only” signs in their windows, and care was made to prevent races from mixing in public facilities. For years the City of Orange, for example, allowed children of Mexican descent to use its public pool only on Mondays. The pool was drained on Monday night and cleaned and refilled on Tuesday, to protect white children from contamination. 

Racial hysteria swept the state during World War II, this time targeting the Japanese. In January of 1945, the federal government reopened the West Coast to Japanese-Americans, who had been rounded up into internment camps three years earlier. Fearing anti-Japanese hostility, the government offered funds to any former internee who decided to remain east of the Rockies, but most elected to return. This unleashed what the War Relocation Agency characterized as a “widespread campaign of terrorism.” In the first six months, Japanese-Americans were targeted in 22 shootings and 20 cases of arson. Vigilantes burnt their sheds to the ground and fired bullets into their homes. Most of the violence was in rural areas, but not all. In San Francisco, the windows of a hostel sheltering Japanese were smashed. 

The post-war period saw the resurgence of the Klan in California, in response to returning veterans of color who were impatient to finally live in the democracy they had fought for. In Fontana, 50 miles east of Los Angeles, an African American named O’Day Short moved his family into a new home in 1945. The house was south of Base Line Road; the saying around town was “Base Line is the race line.” Blacks were supposed to stay north of the road. A group of men, likely from the local KKK, visited Short and advised him to leave, but he didn’t budge. A few days later, his home was firebombed and Short, along with his wife and two young children, perished. A generation would pass before another black would buy property south of Base Line. 

This sort of racial segregation was the rule in California, often enforced through restrictive housing covenants that forbade selling a property to a person of color. (Short was light-skinned, so may not have been identified as black by the seller.) In addition, California had a comparatively high number of “sundown towns”—white communities that barred blacks and other people of color after nightfall. 

Damigo’s vision, then, of whites living apart from other races, does have a historical precedent, and his anxiety about the browning of the state comes from a deep strain of nativism. A century ago, boosters held up Los Angeles as a “city without slums” and “more Anglo-Saxon than the mother country today.” That Eden was soon spoiled, however. In 1928, a reporter for the Saturday Evening Post complained that the city was filled with “the shacks of illiterate, diseased, pauperized Mexicans” who breed “with the reckless prodigality of rabbits.” This invasion of foreigners -- forgetting for the moment that California was once part of Mexico -- is the animating force behind white nationalists like Damigo. They long for a past that never was, and he hopes to tap into the power of Trump’s ahistorical nostalgia. One of the posters that Identity Evropa posts on college campuses proclaims, “Let’s Become Great Again.” 

In more recent decades, the state has cranked out a who’s who of notable racists and immigrant bashers. Richard Butler, the founder of Aryan Nations, spent decades in California before retreating to his compound in Idaho. Tom Metzger, who would launch White Aryan Resistance, got his start by attending John Birch Society meetings in Southern California in the 1960s. And it was a retired accountant from Orange County, Jim Gilchrist, who put out the call for armed volunteers, or so-called Minutemen, to patrol the southern border in 2005. 

According to the SPLC, there are currently 79 hate groups scattered across California, the state with the highest number in the nation. (Florida is second with 63.) Many keep a low profile, but last year they were impossible to miss, as two brawls erupted between white power groups and much larger contingents of counter protestors. The first was a Klan rally in Anaheim, the second a joint rally between the Golden State Skinheads and the Traditionalist Workers Party. In each, multiple people were stabbed. 

“California has been a cornucopia of extremism on all sides of the political spectrum,” says Brian Levin, who directs the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. “It’s the place where you can come from anywhere and define your own American Dream, and everybody’s got a gripe. The fringes are as hot here as they are anywhere.” 

Muslims have borne the brunt of that hate. The SPLC recently claimed that anti-Muslim hate groups nearly tripled in the last year, from 34 in 2015 to 101 in 2016. According to Levin, hate crimes targeting Muslims in California jumped 122 percent between 2014 and 2015, a period that coincided with the San Bernardino terror attack and Donald Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. This past January, someone broke the windows of a mosque in Davis and left bacon at the front door. Several days later, in a radio story about the Muslim ban, Jeff Schwilk of San Diegans for Secure Borders Coalition -- which supports dramatic curbs on immigration and opposed what it called Hillary Clinton’s “mass unvetted Muslim refugee dumping plans” -- told a KQED reporter that “not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” 

On the morning of January 29, in one of his Twitter bursts, Trump wrote: “Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!” Later that evening, Alexandre Bissonnette, a college student and Trump supporter, walked into a Quebec mosque and opened fire during evening prayers, killing six worshipers. 

Such developments have Muslims in California on edge. Hamdy Abbass came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1979, and for more than three decades has lived in San Martin, a rural area south of San Jose. For years, he and his fellow worshipers have held services in a converted barn. In 2006 they bought a 16-acre lot with plans to build a mosque. But Abbass has run into fierce opposition from some local residents, led by a group called the Gilroy-Morgan Hill Patriots, whose president is Georgine Scott-Codiga. “They are claiming they are worried about the environmental impact, but that is a smokescreen,” Abbass says. “It’s Islamophobia.” 

In an interview, Scott-Codiga tells me that she doesn’t have anything against Muslims, but indeed has concerns about the environmental impact of the proposed mosque. I ask her about her group’s Facebook page, which is filled with links to articles with titles like “The Muslim Plot to Colonize America,” and interviews from a group called Political Islam, identified by the SPLC as an anti-Muslim hate group. Her organization also sponsored a local talk by Peter Friedman, who runs a website called Islamthreat.com -- again, listed as a hate group by SPLC -- entitled “What the Mosque Represents and the Threat of Islam.” 

“Well, the people that are committing all of these terrorist acts, they have one thing in common,” she says. “So you have to ask yourself, what’s going on?” 

I ask her what is going on. 

“Look, it has nothing to do with Islamophobia,” she says, and hangs up. 

At a recent community meeting, Abbass tells me, a man warned that the mosque would be used as a base for terrorist attacks. “That was maybe one of the kinder things that was said,” says Abbass. Still, he is undaunted. If all goes as planned, his congregation will begin building the mosque next year. “We have to go with the assumption that we will be targeted,” Abbass says. “But we have to also pray that nothing will happen.”

 

(Gabriel Thompson is an independent journalist who has written for publications that include the New York Times, Harper's, New York, Slate, and the Nation. His forthcoming book is Chasing the Harvest: Migrant Workers in California Agriculture. This piece was first posted AT Capital & Main.)  Klan march photo credit: Los Angeles Public Library Collection. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

Trump: In Search of a Silver Lining

MY TURN-I did not vote for Donald Trump, which I'm sure will come as no surprise to all of you. I have watched his administration the last forty days or so with an almost morbid curiosity, which runs from incredulity to terror. I am, however, an American (adopted) and he was elected President. 

There was a collective country-wide sigh of relief after his speech before Congress on Tuesday night – or maybe because the bar had been set so low, anything different sounded "Presidential." 

Noticeably missing from his remarks was any mention of Russia and even more importantly ... no blasts at the mainstream press. 

Perhaps since most news reports gave him high marks, he might enjoy getting accolades instead having brick bats hurled at him. Maybe he’ll continue in a less bombastic manner. Broad strokes and few details were the sum of the comments about the speech. But I was heartened by his referral to looking for a bi-partisan approach to an immigration bill. 

I love comparisons and the company WalletHub.com has the most amazing set of statistics and comparisons on almost every topic for all 50 States. 

In light of recent developments in U.S. immigration policy, WalletHub’s analysts compared the economic impact of foreign-born populations in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. They determined which states benefit the most -- and least -- from immigration using 18 key indicators, ranging from “median household income of foreign-born population” to “jobs generated by immigrant-owned businesses as a share of total jobs.” 

It's no surprise that California ranks first in both foreign entrepreneurs and foreign workforce. New York and New Jersey are second and third respectively. The mass deportation would have a disastrous effect on our economy as well as a social impact. 

I flipped channels after the speech to see what the right, the left and pundits in the middle had to say. Naturally, there were raves and jeers depending on who was speaking. 

Being a half glass full kind of person I've spent a considerable amount of time trying to find something to cheer about. Some of you have accused me of being naïve. One of my loudest detractors said I was "nuts.” But I prefer to live in my half bubble that says one can almost always find something good in a given situation and I think I have found something positive. 

As an electorate...we suck! Half the eligible voters in our country…don't. Many who didn’t vote were either turned off by both candidates or thought Hillary Clinton had it in the bag and didn't need their votes. Others didn't care who won since they thought their votes wouldn't change anything anyway. 

But the Trump win has managed to do something that we haven't seen in a long time: it has caused a huge number of people to suddenly become "politically active." The Town Halls being held across the country have had huge turnouts with people who seem to understand the issues that affect them. Even with all of the enthusiasm for President Barak Obama's campaign, these crowds today have a different vibe. 

So, maybe it took something like a Donald Trump to get Americans to realize that they need to participate in democratic institutions. They need to communicate with their elected representatives and yes...they need to run for office. 

This is very timely because we have a local primary election next week, which historically gets an even lower turnout. We will have a good idea at the end of next week as to whether President Trump was instrumental in getting Angelenos out to vote...or whether all the marches, sit-ins, phone calls and Town Halls were just a reaction with no follow through. 

For as long as I have been writing for CityWatch, I have pontificated on the importance of voting. Those of you who read CW are among the most knowledgeable and I'm sure almost all of you take your voting responsibility seriously. It's the rest of our collective neighbors we need to motivate. 

There are new faces on the ballot. Will they get elected? We won't know until the finals in May.   There are some offices in which the incumbent is running unopposed. Both Controller Ron Galperin and City Attorney Mike Feurer are unopposed. City Councilman Bob Blumenfield in District 3 is also unopposed. 

District 3 is almost the easiest to manage District out of the 15 Council Districts. Blumenfield shows up for lots of events and issues proclamations, but aside from potholes and traffic concerns the challenges in his District are minor in comparison to the others. He wants to get the City wired, which is admirable, but keeping such a low profile should change now that he has five and a half years left. 

Maybe, now that we have term limits, potential candidates are looking at those three offices and are preferring to wait 5 1/2 years until a given seat is open. 

Beating an incumbent is very difficult. They have the name recognition and unless there has been some kind of scandal during their terms, it’s tough to raise the money and support. Surprisingly, the Los Angeles Times did NOT endorse all the incumbents for either City Council or the Board of Education. They did endorse a prior Trustee, an incumbent and a newcomer for the Community College Board of Trustees. Their endorsement list with explanations is on their website. 

It seems like there is a lot more interest and candidate meetings than ever before. It could be the folks involved now are just noisier. 

Next week will give us a clue as to whether President Donald Trump has given any real impetus to grassroots action. Or is it just more talk? 

As always, comments welcome.

 

(Denyse Selesnick is a CityWatch columnist. She is a former publisher/journalist/international event organizer. Denyse can be reached at: [email protected]) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

 

Urban Growth Machine Trashes Measure S … with LA Times Support

THE TWO FACES OF LAT--According to the Los Angeles Times editorial page, “Measure S isn't a solution to LA’s housing woes, it's a childish middle finger to City Hall.” Later, similar articles made the same and related points when the paper took the lead in opposing Measure S, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. 

Yet, the same newspaper’s investigative reporters have performed a tremendous public service by unearthing an extensive city planning pay-to-play operation at City Hall.  In what the Times called soft corruption, deep-pocketed developers make extensive contributions to elected officials in order to get their mega-projects permitted in locations where they are by barred by LA’s planning and zoning laws. Instead of telling the developers to move their projects to parcels where they are legally permitted, or to scale their projects down so they can legally build them in their preferred spots, the elected officials vote to change the planning and zoning laws for the individual lots where the mega-projects are proposed. 

Voila! Spot-zoning and spot-General Plan Amendments for those who pay-to-play. 

How can we make sense of this two-faced approach by LA’s most prominent newspaper? 

On one hand, the newspaper has totally substantiated one of the main arguments of the Yes of S campaign, City Hall pay-to-play to has become LA’s land use planning process. On the other hand, the same newspaper has repeated, nearly verbatim, the no on S campaign’s talking points. 

The easy part of my analysis – at the end of this column -- is to debunk the Times’ growing list of claims about Measure S. The harder part is to explain the paper’s two-faced approach. This is my explanation. 

For over a century, LA's land use planning process has been little more than real estate speculators calling the shots at City Hall. Los Angeles has experienced many waves of municipal reform – such as the adoption of the first zoning code in the United States in 1909 -- since the end of the 19th Century to control this type of corruption. Nevertheless, after each reform, such as the new City Charter in 2000, AB 283, and The General Plan Framework Element, City Hall methodically undermined each of them.

When Los Angeles was a new city with raw land, real estate speculation focused on housing construction. Despite occasional victories by good government forces in Los Angeles, there was never much concern about the environment, infrastructure, and public services at City Hall. Now, in 21st Century LA there is hardly any raw land left. In a famous essay from former city planning professors at USC, the end of this economically-induced low-density development model was described as "Sprawl Hits the Wall."  Their account also dovetailed with Mayor Tom Bradley’s LA 2000 – A City for the Future report, which attempted to transform Los Angeles from an unrestrained fast growth city to a controlled growth city. Both visions were then turned into an official plan, the General Plan Framework.  

Infill Development. 

But, what these scholars and civil leaders did not fully realize was that the end of raw land Los Angeles hardly meant the end of real estate speculation. The old Urban Growth Machine simply put on a new set of clothes. The same Growth Machine real estate investors turned their attention away from tract housing to infill housing, including luxury towers, McMansions, and small lots subdivisions. 

While the schemes to demolish and replace existing, affordable homes with more expensive residences do not require any spot-zones from the City Council, most new high-rise luxury apartment buildings do. They are usually tall, dense structures because of real estate economics – high profits follow high buildings. This, then, is the old Growth Machine’s new real estate model: private infill projects regardless of social consequences adopted plans and zones. 

But, even though tract housing and luxury towers look much different, their political and economic content are the same. Real estate speculators need to move fast on their projects. They lose money when they are hemmed in by planning, zoning, and the California Environmental Quality Action (CEQA) laws and regulations. Like before, they want a pliant City Hall and are willing to liberally contribute to elected officials to make sure they get it. 

If they can’t wangle this through widespread up-zoning and up-planning ordinances, such as those appended to the overturned Hollywood Community Plan, they then move on to their Plan B. They resort to pay-to-play and spot-zoning to legalize their new lucrative projects, one-by-one, in all the wrong places. 

How Measure S fits into this history. 

This is what Measure S is all about, the historic struggle in Los Angeles between good governance types who know that large cities need to be carefully planned versus commercial real estate interests bound together in the Urban Growth Machine, including boosters from local newspapers

The updated Urban Growth Machine, though, has learned a few lessons through focus groups and strong voter support in Los Angeles for two affordable housing initiatives, Measures JJJ and HHH. One is that they should present their old free market Reaganesque arguments about deregulation with liberal buzzwords. This is why the “no on S” campaign frames their case around affordable housing, jobs, and transit. It also explains why they claim that spot-zoning and spot-planning is necessary to build affordable housing (it isn’t). It also accounts for their claim that the strong planning and zoning championed by Measure S is really a clever tool of the haves to wage class struggle against the have-nots, largely racial and ethnic minorities. 

But, these election ploys are just window dressing for the hidden agenda of the real estate firms enmeshed in pay-to-play, including their partners in the press. Their priority was and still is maximizing return on their real estate investment. It is not about carefully planning cities, and this is the conundrum of the Los Angeles Times editorial board. They are caught between these competing narratives, even when one side of the argument comes from their own reporters. 

Do they side with their traditional Urban Growth Machine allies in the real estate sector, or do they side with their own reporters, as well as the advocates of good government? Will the paper continue to side with topsy-turvy real estate markets, as they have since the days of Otis Chandler, Harry Chandler, and Harrison Gray?  Or will they line-up with the solid planning and zoning that has been the best option for Los Angeles since the 1980s? 

Torn by these conflicting forces, the LA Times has taken a Solomon-like approach when it comes to Measure S. The first half of their editorial approach gives credit to their own reporting, and the second half ignores their own reporting, and parrots the talking points of the no on S campaign. In so many words the paper states, as do many no on S advocates, “Yes, LA’s City Hall is corrupt and yes, the City’s planning process is broken, but we still need pay-to-play to overcome our problems of becoming a world-class city.” 

The LA Times Editorial Board approach, though, ultimately fails. 

To pull off this two faced approach, through its own editorials, and subsequent feature stories by its own reporters and guest columnists, the Times simply became a megaphone for the no on S campaign. Since these talking points are well known, I have selected the most prominent ones to debunk. 

“Measure S would enact a permanent ban on General Plan amendments for any property less than 15 acres.” 

Really? The LAT should review their own editorials supporting the new year 2000 Los Angeles City Charter.  It is the updated City Charter that states that all General Plan Amendments must be for geographically significant areas. Measure S simply clarifies this Charter provision to mean significant areas must be 15 acres of larger, a specific plan, or a community plan.

“Because the existing city’s land-use plans are so out of date and so riddled with inconsistencies that it’s not unusual to need a zone change to build a simple apartment building in a row of existing apartment buildings.” 

Really? The Times’ own reporter’s summary of Measure S notes that commercial zones in Los Angeles permit the by-right construction of apartment buildings. The only impediment in some cases is Proposition U, and this is routinely avoided through density bonuses. They do not require a City Council-spot zone or spot-plan amendment. This is why Measure S is not a barrier to the construction of apartment buildings, other than high-rise luxury towers located in areas with low-rise planning and zoning.

“Measure S would worsen the housing shortage.” 

Really? No argument that Measure S could hinder the construction of luxury apartments in low-rise areas because in these locations the building permits depend on spot-zoning. But this luxury housing market is totally disconnected from the middle income and low income housing in short-supply. Any developer who wants to build for these markets has massive pent-up demand, many by-right building sites, and lenders around the world interested in the Los Angeles real estate market. Measure S does not stand in the way of any of this since the only barrier is, essentially, self-imposed. Affordable housing has such low profit margins that developers avoid it. No change in local zoning laws will be able to change this basic feature of real estate economics, the need to make a profit. 

The measure would do nothing to create more affordable housing or to protect existing affordable housing.” 

Really? Measure S requires that all land use decisions be consistent with the General Plan: “5) Require the City to make findings of General Plan consistency for planning amendments, project approvals and permit decisions.” This legal finding alone has the power to pull the rug out from underneath many types of speculative real estate leading to displacement, especially McMansions, Small Lot Subdivision, some mid-rise projects built through the demolition of older structures and the evictions of their tenants. For example the General Plan Framework’s Policy 4.3 is clearly one criteria that can and should be used to slow down gentrification and displacement, “Objective 4.3: Conserve the scale and character of residential neighborhoods.”

Furthermore, LA’s Community Plans, all part of the General Plan, contain anti-displacement policies, such as Policy 1.4-2 from the Wilshire Community Plan. It could easily be used as a finding to block gentrification, “Ensure that new housing opportunities minimize displacement of residents. Program: Decision-makers should adopt displacement findings in any decision relating to the construction of new housing.” 

Measure S will make it nearly impossible to convert a parking lot, a defunct public building or a strip mall into housing.” 

Really? Strip malls are built on commercially zoned lots, which allow by-right apartment buildings. As for public buildings and parking lots, it depends on the underlying zoning, but Los Angeles has no shortage of parcels on which apartments, both market-rate and affordable, can be built. In fact, the General Plan Framework Element concluded that Los Angeles has sufficient commercially zone land (which include apartment buildings) for all 21st century growth scenarios: The Plan's capacity for growth considerably exceeds any realistic market requirements for the future. For example, there is sufficient capacity for retail and office commercial uses for over 100 years even at optimistic, pre-recession, market growth rates.”  

Building on underused sites is the best way to create more housing without displacing existing residents. 

Really? LA Open Acres has created a searchable map of thousands of vacant lots in Los Angeles, including 3000 in South Los Angeles. Per the Times preference, most are suitable for residential construction without displacement, and Measure S does not affect them. But, since the year 2000 Los Angeles has lost 20,000 rest stabilized units, as well as many more affordable units, through demolitions and evictions. 

This is the dysfunctional city planning status quo that no on Measure S protects. In contrast, a Yes on S vote allows the city to slow down dislocation and gentrification through findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, as discussed above. 

In addition, Measure S would make it harder to address homelessness. Just three months ago, LA voters passed Measure HHH to build 10,000 units of low-income and permanent supportive housing for the homeless

Really? Measure S supporters also strongly supported Measure HHH. This is because the City of LA already owns thousands of parcels where affordable housing can be constructed by-right. It does not need to use private parcels or city-owned sites where the zoning does not allow residential. This is why the City of LA, which has had a program to use city-owned sites for housing since 1988, has never bothered to change the zoning or plan designations of sites not zoned for residential uses.

Don’t hold hostage badly needed housing with this overly broad ballot measure. 

Really? An updated General Plan can identify where in LA there is the greatest need for middle income and low-income housing. It can also determine where there is sufficient infrastructure and services capacity for increased housing, as well as which parts of the city have the greatest amount of zoning suitable for residential development. This information, especially if coupled with housing programs like HHH or a restoration of Federal and CRA housing programs, can address LA’s housing crisis. It is a much better model than the status quo, which almost entirely depends on the ups and downs of private real estate investors to provide a barely detectable trickle of affordable housing. 

Final words. 

In light of LA’s history, we know that a Measure S election victory will not be a permanent defeat for the Urban Growth Machine, but it will be a serious set back. Nevertheless, it will try to slowly worm its way back into City Hall with backdoor pay-to-play for spot-zones. Supporters of strong planning must, therefore, be vigilant. 

We also know that an election defeat of Measure S will quickly lead to backsliding over City Council promises to quickly update the General Plan, refuse campaign contributions from real estate investors, and improve Environmental Impact Reports. 

But, we also know that the process that Mayor Tom Bradley began in the late 1980’s to turn LA into a planned city will only grow. This is because Los Angeles’ future will become a dystopian world like Blade Runner if market forces continue to substitute for a strong, adhered to General Plan. 

As a result, either by choice or by urban implosion, an infill-focused Urban Growth Machine will lead to LA’s demise. The city will then have no choice but to fully embrace a planned future.

 

(Dick Platkin is a former LA city planner who reports on local planning issues in Los Angeles for CityWatch LA. Please send your comments and corrections to [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

We Can’t Hear You … Citizens Oversight of HHH off to a Fishy Start

LOOK AND LISTEN-Unfortunately, it appears we’re off to a red-flag-riddled start with Prop HHH. The first implementation meeting took place on February 17th, though you wouldn’t know it unless – well, actually, there is no “unless.” There was simply no reasonable way for any Angeleno to have found out about it. 

No worries. We’ll just listen to the audio recording of the meeting ... except that … 

The following brief letter is real and is reprinted here verbatim: 

Mr. Preven - earlier today you asked about audio recordings for both the COC [Civilian’s Oversight Committee] and AOC [Administrative Oversight Committee] meetings for Prop HHH. 

I followed up with staff and it is our intention, similar to all of our other bond oversight Committees, to record all of these meetings. However, there was a technical problem at the COC meeting last Friday and so we do not have an audio recording for that meeting. Tomorrow's meeting will be recorded assuming no problems with the equipment.  

We do not currently post audio recordings of any bond oversight meetings and do not currently have plans to begin doing so. We can and do provide them to the public when asked. 

Sincerely, [name redacted]

Assistant City Administrative Officer 

We’ll take that as …“Yes, I didn’t mean what I just wrote and of course we’ll post every audio recording immediately, so that the public doesn’t rise up and roar the Mayor and the rest of us out of City Hall and half way to Kingdom come.” 

Thank goodness that four out of the seven Citizens Oversight Committee members for HHH were appointed by the Mayor! With a straight shooter like Garcetti calling the shots, the public’s sure to get a good deal. Better yet, the other three Committee members were appointed by the not-at-all-compliant City Council. With that body’s integrity in the mix, the future couldn’t be brighter, right? 

Are you sitting down? One of the Mayor’s appointees for the Citizens Oversight Committee is former CAO Miguel Santana. Last we saw him he was receiving a commendatory resolution and a lionizing farewell. (By the way, he said that everyone can get in free to the County Fair  if they give him a jingle. We’ll keep that under our hats and not tell the people whose livelihoods depend on ticket sales.) 

But Miguel is back and although he has worked for the Mayor since forever, he’s turned over a new leaf during the past the six weeks and is now ready to do some 100% independent oversight.  

Here’s an idea; let’s lose the nascent obfuscations and secretiveness, and get this billion dollar operation off to a non-fishy start. Let’s make it so that an everyday resident can find an agenda or any notice of these oversight meetings without hiring a private detective. Trust and verify.  

And about that audio equipment? We know a great guy downtown. 

(Eric Preven and Joshua Preven are public advocates for better transparency in local government. Eric is a Studio City based writer-producer and a candidate for Los Angeles mayor. Joshua is a teacher.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

LA Primary 2017: Few Unknown Outcomes … Council District 5 May Be an Exception

ELECTION WATCH--One of the most competitive Los Angeles City Council contests that voters could decide next week pits the incumbent against two challengers – one with a large campaign war chest to leverage. (Photo above: Jesse Creed, Mark Herd, Paul Koretz, candidates for LA’s CD5)

Councilmember Paul Koretz is running for his third term representing District 5. Covering communities like Bel Air, Encino, Hollywood and Westwood, the district is among the wealthiest and well-educated among the council's 15 represented areas.

Koretz' challengers are Mark Herd, who has been active in several community groups and is the founder of the Westwood Neighborhood Council, and attorney Jesse Creed.

Among the challengers in the eight City Council contests on Tuesday's primary election ballot, Creed is the top campaign fundraiser, with the exception of one candidate running for the open District 7 seat in the San Fernando Valley.

Creed has collected about $298,800 in contributions, as of the latest filling deadline, but is trailing incumbent Koretz who has about $440,300 in contributions. Both Koretz and Creed also accepted public matching funds. Herd has not reported any fundraising.  

Creed claims he's gained significant local support by walking the district's neighborhoods. He said he has spent three to five hours a day since December knocking on doors.

"Our donation base comes from individuals, people with a pulse, not PACs, corporations or LLCs. And it comes from people who live in and around the city," he said.  

Koretz points toward accomplishments like helping to save the Century Plaza Hotel, boosting code enforcements and his work on environmental issues. He is well-known as an advocate for animal rights and worked to outlaw declawing cats and puppy mills in Los Angeles.

For his next term, Koretz said he'll be able to get more done for constituents thanks to funding improvements, a reference to improved city revenues since the recession. 

"We'll trim more trees, but we've been doing that already. We'll fix more streets, but we've been doing that already. We have money committed to fix sidewalks and we'll do that more aggressively," he said.

Creed promises he will only be beholden to voters and he's taken a pledge not to accept any money from developers or lobbyists. 

"I will be an independent voice for the neighborhoods, for residents, for the basic issues that people care about on a day-to-day basis," he said.

Koretz dismisses Creed's charges that the incumbent is beholden to developers. Koretz took heat for his handling of the developer Rick Caruso's high-rise residential building project located across from the Beverly Center. 

The Los Angeles Times reported that Koretz received $2,200 in donations from Caruso. After the story ran, Koretz removed his support for the project, and then ultimately restored his support after Caruso lowered the project's height by 55 feet.

Koretz told KPCC "it didn't turn out perfectly." He said he'd intended to remove his support for the project all along unless it was shortened, but was motivated to act faster when the Beverly Wilshire Homes Association held a press conference to voice strong opposition to the project.

"At the end of the day, I think it was the right compromise," Koretz said. 

He called Creed's campaign "the most shockingly negative" that he's ever seen. 

"Every developer in town knows I've been their worst enemy," Koretz said. "The idea that contributions have made me any less independent, I think, is absurd."

Despite the Caruso project controversy, Koretz was among five incumbent City Council members endorsed by the Los Angeles Times. The newspaper praised him for caring "deeply about his district and his constituents" and for making himself available to them. 

On the other hand, the Los Angeles Daily News endorsed Creed, noting his work as an advocate for homeless veterans and what it described as his broad knowledge of district issues.

Koretz also has the backing of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, and several politicians like Mayor Eric Garcetti.

If no candidate reaches the majority threshold of 50 percent of voter support plus one vote in the primary, then the top two vote-getters will move on to the general election on May 16.

Voters who are still undecided on the District 5 race can check out KPCC's candidate survey, which features the candidates' backgrounds and answers to campaign questions. 

(This analysis was posted originally at KPCC radio.

-cw

Gov. Jerry Brown: Legacy Interupted

NEW GEOGRAPHY--The cracks in the 50-year-old Oroville Dam, and the massive spillage and massive evacuations that followed, shed light on the true legacy of Jerry Brown. The governor, most recently in Newsweek, has cast himself as both the Subcomandante Zero of the anti-Trump resistance and savior of the planet. But when Brown finally departs Sacramento next year, he will be leaving behind a state that is in danger of falling apart both physically and socially.

Jerry Brown’s California suffers the nation’s highest housing prices, largest percentage of people in or near poverty of any state and an exodus of middle-income, middle-aged people. Job growth is increasingly concentrated in low-wage sectors. By contrast, Brown’s father, Pat, notes his biographer, Ethan Rarick, helped make the 20th century “The California Century,” with our state providing “the template of American life.” There was then an “American Dream” across the nation, but here we called it the “California Dream.” His son is driving a stake through the heart of that very California Dream.

California crumbling

Nothing so illustrates the gap between the two Browns than infrastructure spending. Oroville Dam’s delayed maintenance, coupled with a lack of major new water storage facilities to serve a growing population, reflects a pattern of neglect. Just this year alone, the massive water losses at Oroville Dam and other storage overflows have almost certainly offset a significant portion of the hard-won drought water savings achieved by our state’s cities. A sensible state policy would have stored more water from before the drought, and would now be maximizing the current bounty.

Once a national and global leader in infrastructure, according to a report last year by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, California now spends the least percentage of its state budget on infrastructure of any state. In the critical Sacramento-San Francisco Delta, an ancient levee and dike system is decaying, and ever more stringent environmental regulations limit key state and federal water facility operations. To be sure, Brown has supported a “water fix” — a dual tunnel through the Delta — to address some of these problems, but his efforts have only produced a mountain of paper, rather than real-world improvements. In terms of preparing for the future, California’s current penchant for endless studies and environmental hand-wringing is fostering pre-Katrina Louisiana conditions, rather than the forward-looking capital investments previously the state’s hallmark.

Remarkably, this year’s water system fiasco could have been prevented if Brown had actually heeded his own climate change rhetoric, which anticipates that more rain and less snow will fall in the state. But his climate change obsession failed to spark any rush to modernize or expand water storage to capture the potentially increased rainfall. There has not been a major new dam or reservoir constructed since the first “Moonbeam” era — in large part, due to environmental opposition and Sacramento’s disinterest in basic state services.

You don’t have to be a hard-core climate activist to see the need to expand our storage capacity. Contrary to the prevailing media narrative, droughts and floods have been repeated throughout our history. Back in 1861, it rained for 54 days, flooding much of state and creating lakes in the Central Valley. Yet, Brown, and his immediate predecessors, have not chosen not to invest in this critical infrastructure, leaving us with an aging set of water resources that date, like the Oroville Dam, from the 1960s or earlier.

Nor is the water infrastructure alone in terms of neglect. California’s roads are among the worst maintained in the country. The Los Angeles area has the worst road conditions of all major metropolitan areas, followed closely by the Bay Area. But fixing roads is hardly a Brown priority, given that the state wants to put us all on a “road diet.” Instead, we are faced with the mounting costs for a high-speed choo choo that Brown wants to leave us as his legacy, but solves none of California’s basic transportation problems. Despite paying billions in gas taxes and other levies that are supposed to maintain roads, Californians, as the San Francisco Chronicle recently suggested, will be required to pay new, more regressive taxes if they want fewer potholes and sound bridges.

The wages of narcissism — and opportunism

Brown’s recent pronunciamentos suggest we will have ever more extreme climate policies, including virtual bans on all greenfield housing, and regulations covering everything from how houses are built to cow farts. Sadly, all this will have no real effect on the global climate, given California’s relatively small footprint; the shift of people, jobs and productive industries to other, less temperate states like Texas all but wipes out whatever might be gained from the state’s increasingly extreme greenhouse gas limitations.

Brown’s actions seem rooted in a desire to present himself as the savior of the planet. Yet, while he postures, Brown is leaving a legacy not of salvation, but rather of devastation — at least for everyone but a handful of tech oligarchs and the state’s pensioners. His successors must cope with voter ire over such mundane things as ever more crowded roads, a perennial shortage of secure water supplies and cascading prices for everything from electricity to housing. These realities, not the praise heaped on Brown from the media, will constitute the essence of his legacy.

(Joel Kotkin is executive editor of New Geography … where this analysis was first posted. He is the Roger Hobbs Distinguished Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University and executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism. He lives in Orange County, CA.)

-cw

 

More Articles ...