LOS ANGELES

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW-Donald J. Trump and Co. have occupied the Oval Office for over a third of his first 100 days or edging toward 1,000  hours, give or take a few trips to Mar A Lago. Thirty-eight days have passed since Women’s Marches were held across the planet. 

To date, social media feeds are still primarily occupied by political posts, to the chagrin of those who long for the days of “cute puppies and grandmas” (this from an actual Facebook post I read a couple of weeks ago!) 

Since that first Tuesday in November, many of us have experienced disappointment leading to fear and anxiety. I’ve described the slew of executive orders and statements as brush fires we’re working to extinguish all over the yard while hosing down the house to protect it from going up in flames. 

So what can we do next? Can we survive this pace for another three years, ten and a half months? 

This past week, I co-hosted a Huddle event, a follow up effort in coordination with The Sister March Network. I attended a Town Hall hosted by Assemblyman Matt Dababneh (D-Encino) in the Van Nuys State Building atrium. Rep. Dababneh, Congressman Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) and state Sen. Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) fielded questions from a standing-room only crowd of constituents. Over the weekend, I also joined a group of Santa Monica and westside residents at the first Bake & Gather event coordinated by baker/restaurateur Zoe Nathan and colleagues. Lines snaked around a park and pastries sold out for the first time within the first hour as participants jammed twenty dollar bills into jars to raise money for the ACLU and Public Counsel. 

I spoke with and listened to participants at all these events. Here’s my takeaway. As much as we need to formulate concrete plans to address what’s going on in Washington, D.C., we also need to gather to heal. It’s far too easy to slip into hopelessness and despair. Knowing we are not alone goes a long way toward being able to address and even survive the days of this administration. 

During the election cycle, I joined a number of private Facebook groups that either supported Hillary Clinton or opposed Trump, as much to share information and grievances as to help me to process what was happening. During the final days before the election, we questioned what would happen should these groups disband. As a reaction to the outcome, many of the groups are still active but the focus has shifted to resistance, as well as commiserating and venting. 

Since the election, and certainly since January 20, we have seen the rise of many groups in response to Trump’s executive orders, cabinet picks, and presidency in general. The shift has attracted many who were previously not engaged in the process but who are fully embracing their new roles as activists. Throughout the country, hundreds of people attend town hall meetings, a far greater number than in years past. I’ve heard from friends who attended town hall meetings in red states where the constituents in attendance were plentiful, infuriated and anxious, just like us in blue states. In fact, more than a few members of Congress have refused to participate in town hall meetings because they don’t want to face the rage and questions of their constituents. 

Throughout the country, people are sharing to-do lists to contact representatives and address numerous issues and pending legislation. People are continuing to gather for marches, meetings, and to plan the next steps at every turn. They are mobilizing to turn around seats in the midterm elections. Others are contemplating running for local offices. 

This administration is a bit like a dysfunctional or unhappy marriage. Venting and commiserating certainly have value for getting through each day in response to all the landmines -- but taking the next step is equally, if not more, crucial. Complain, express disapproval, find like-minded people for peace of mind but also take steps to move forward. 

To find a Huddle group in your neighborhood, visit www.womensmarch.com/100/action2/.
Join the next Bake & Gather March 11, 12-3 p.m. at the (Silver Lake Reservoir’s Meadow 1850 W. Silverlake Drive), hosted by Roxana Jullapat (behind the forthcoming Friends & Family,) Proof Bakery’s Na Young Ma, and Alimento’s Harriet Ha.

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

@THE GUSS REPORT-An article I wrote last year cautioned that when speaking with politicians, and those surrounding them, one should “listen closely, because what they say matters; their evasion matters more; and their evasion while speaking matters most.”

Today’s column starts innocently at a community meeting in Hollywood a few weeks ago when a woman named Del Richardson offered money to the residents of 12 rent-stabilized addresses on Yucca Avenue and Vista del Mar Avenue to persuade them to move elsewhere so developers could use their landlord’s property for more lucrative purposes. (Photo above: Del Richardson, blue dress; Councilman Price, white jacket.)

What Richardson and her company, Del Richardson Associates (DRA), were in the habit of not offering is this tidbit of information: according to media sources, she is married to Curren DeMille Price, Jr., the Los Angeles City Councilmember who happens to be on the city’s Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee. (DRA which has been in business for decades does not appear to have a website, or at least not one that is currently functioning.)

When the locals confronted Richardson (who is listed as “Del Richardson Price” on the Councilmember’s Wikipedia page and elsewhere) about that relationship, and whether she was offering fair market money to vacate their units, she begrudgingly admitted that she is married to Price but claimed that she had no conflict of interest. Still, it is believed that she left or was removed from the project days after the disclosure.

In order to determine how long Price and Richardson have been married, a search of public records shows that Price was, indeed, married…to Lynn Suzette Price, his first wife, and that he twice filed for divorce from her in the Los Angeles court system, with neither effort finalized. Mr. Price’s second such effort to obtain that divorce tells a curious story, to say the least.

In 2012, Mr. Price tried to persuade the LA court to grant him a divorce hearing because, he claimed, he was unable to locate Lynn, and he wanted to serve notice on her via a paid announcement in a newspaper. But the court staff directed Mr. Price to ascertain from the post office whether Lynn used a change of address form, and to explore serving her at that address, if one was provided.

The case file shows no further activity in that divorce pursuit…because Mr. Price knew quite well where Lynn was living and working.

Lynn Price is an attorney practicing in Trenton, New Jersey. It says so on her website, and in various bar associations to which she has belonged since 2003, after receiving her law degree from Southwestern University. Her physical address, an active phone number and email address are all readily available.

Price knew all along where to serve his wife with divorce papers – had he wanted to.

Instead of having a New Jersey process server go to Lynn’s office address, Mr. Price’s SoCal process server swore to the court in a misdated 2012 document that no response was ever received to the two letters mailed to her Trenton office address.

No one can know why the process server or Mr. Price misled the court in declaring under penalty of perjury that Lynn could not be located, though his not wanting to split assets with his first wife that he currently co-owns with his second wife is a prevailing thought. Mr. Price is no amateur when it comes to serving legal papers. According to his biography, he earned a law degree from the University of Santa Clara. But according to the California Bar Association, he never received a license to practice law in California.

In addition to there being no record of a divorce between Mr. Price and his first wife in Los Angeles courts, court clerks in Sacramento, Houston, Trenton and Washington, D.C. (i.e. places where either or both were known to have lived prior to Price marrying Richardson) indicate there is no such divorce record in those locations either.

Lynn Price did not respond to several voicemail messages requesting comment on the status of her marriage to Mr. Price. Del Richardson, for weeks, did not respond to questions about her real estate dealings. And Mr. Price similarly dodged questions about either subject.

Until last week.

That’s when the LA Times endorsed Jorge Nuño, Price’s young Latino challenger for his CD9 seat on the LA City Council, a community which is quickly transitioning from largely African-American to predominantly Latino.

Within minutes of my publicly pointing out Nuño’s rise, I received coordinated emails – within minutes of each other – from Del Richardson and Price’s media relations person, Angelina Valencia.

Richardson declared, “I conduct all my business with honesty and integrity in a fair, ethical and forthright manner, and in compliance with laws and regulations.”

But this 2004 LAUSD audit concluded that Richardson’s firm overbilled the school district by $83,128 for unauthorized charges. The audit recommended that the amount should be recovered from DRA, or deducted from its future invoices. It is unclear whether Richardson’s excess fees were ever repaid, or if any of her other government contracts are under audit.

Moreover, while Richardson stated that there was “public disclosure of my business interests in the Councilmember’s ‘Form 700,’ economic interest statement,” there was no such mention of it in Price’s 2012 Ethics Commission Form 700, when he was a candidate for LA City Council. He only made that disclosure in subsequent years, when he already had the job.

The huge financial increase between Mr. Price’s 2012 and 2013 economic interest disclosures are the likeliest reason why he wanted a divorce from his first wife without serving her directly.

So if the LAUSD could not rely on Richardson’s financial figures, it comes as no surprise that the residents of rent-stabilized apartments were no less concerned that she dealt fairly with them, either.

And finally, there were the emails from Angelina Valencia, Mr. Price’s Communications Director, who, when asked when and where Price divorced his first wife, wrote back, “I am currently running your request by the City Attorney's Office. I will have a response for you shortly.”

Why would the City Attorney’s office have knowledge of, let alone anything to say about, when, where – and whether – Mr. Price divorced his first wife? Ms. Valencia has yet to reply.

More on the Councilmember’s connubial chaos soon.

(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.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

PLATKIN ON PLANNING--It is a serious chore to keep up with the deceptive claims about Measure S. Today I heard that it would cause rents to increase because of supply and demand, while yesterday I heard just the opposite. Supposedly Measure S will block the construction of luxury housing (partially true), and it therefore reduces the amount of affordable housing because of supply and demand. (Graphic above: Caruso luxury development on Burton Way, Los Angeles.) 

Only one of these contradictory claims could possibly be true, even though as a city planner, I think they are both false.   This is why. Rents for luxury apartments, like Caruso Affiliated's at 8150 Burton Way and 333 S. LaCienega, are not connected to middle class and affordable housing markets. 

In response to Caruso's projects, charging average rents of $12,000 per month, nearby landlords are not going to move their rents either up or down. They will continue to impose the three percent annual rent increases allowed through LA’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance. And, because of vacancy decontrol, they will attempt to rent-out newly vacated units at slightly higher prices. Finally, when given the right combination of carrots and sticks, some landlords will sell out to the likes of the Wiseman Company. 

As the new owner, they will evict the tenants they inherited and then demolish the small apartment building they just bought. All of this takes place in a universe separate from the luxury apartments that sprout up down the street through City Council spot-zoning ordinances. 

Anyone, including opponents of Measure S, who truly wants to maintain affordable apartments and houses, needs to first stop the dislocation caused by urban infill, whether for luxury mega-projects, medium-rise apartment buildings, Small Lot Subdivisions, or McMansions. They then need to toughen up LA's Rent Stabilization Ordinance to eliminate automatic rent increases and vacancy decontrol. 

Beyond those defensive steps, if they want to increase the supply of affordable housing, they need to campaign for the restoration of all the slashed HUD public housing programs and the local Community Redevelopment Agency. 

“Law” of supply and demand: But what about the miraculous law of supply and demand that can simultaneously cause rents to increase and affordable housing units to appear from thin air? This assumed feature of capitalism actually plays little role in LA’s housing market for one obvious reason.   Supply and demand only works within capitalism's one true iron law, profit maximization. 

Maximizing profit is the purpose of all capitalist ventures and investment decisions. As a result, no one buys or sells things for long – including real estate -- when they are not making sufficient profit, regardless of surplus supply or unmet demand.   

If you look at housing in LA, there is a massive unmet demand for middle income and affordable housing, even when thousands of foreclosed properties sit empty. There are also vast piles of underperforming capital available for housing construction, as well as ample building sites for new market and affordable apartment buildings. How so? Because all commercially zoned property in Los Angeles can be used for by-right apartment houses.  While it is true that Proposition U limits the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on some commercial lots, the subsequent Density Bonus Ordinance allows developers to dodge this restriction by including 10 or 20 percent affordable housing in their projects.

So given available capital, potential building sites, and enormous demand, why is there is so little construction of market and affordable housing in LA? As far as I know, no Los Angeles developers are choosing to meet this pent-up demand for affordable housing by building low-priced housing, even though it would immediately fill up or sell.  They can't make enough money at it, so they don't do it.  They need subsidies, and these subsidies have totally dried up through the elimination of Federal housing programs and the dissolution of the Community Redevelopment Agency.

Nevertheless, some anti-Measure S true believers maintain -- without a shred of evidence -- that the construction of luxury housing increases the supply of affordable housing. Through CityWatch I have repeatedly asked them where in Los Angeles one can find these new affordable units. So far no one has given me an addresses or told me about a neighborhood where this affordable housing can be found. If some reader knows its location, please speak up. 

Until I learn otherwise, my explanation is simple. There is no area in Los Angeles where new luxury housing causes the price of older housing to go down. Even when there is a glut of luxury housing, such as Downtown Los Angeles (DTLA), the price of non-luxury housing stays fixed or also slowly rises, as part of broad market trends.  At best, the landlords of the luxury housing repond to high vacancy rates with offers of free parking or a month of free rent. That is as far as they go, which is many thousands of dollars away from affordability.   

Filtering: The anti-S diehards also argue that new luxury housing eventually filters down to become affordable housing, although it takes 25 years.  I have therefore asked them where in Los Angeles one can find affordable housing that was built as luxury housing in 1992 or earlier.  If it actually exists, it is such a well-kept secret that even those who make these claims do not identify these hidden locations. They are as mum as could be, so if they know, they, too, need to finally speak up.

Domino Theory: Another new anti-Measure S supply and demand argument is a domino theory.  It argues that a new tenant of luxury housing frees up a lower priced unit, and this cascades through the entire housing market, creating affordable housing at the lowest ends.   

But, quite frankly this is just a quack theory contrived by the anti-S campaign.  There are no facts and studies whatsoever to back up this newly minted domino theory.  There is simply no evidence that the construction of luxury housing triggers a chain reaction that methodically generates low priced housing at another location.   

If this were the case, Hollywood should have lots of new affordable housing, but reality is just the opposite. Affordable housing, including rent-stabilized apartments, has largely disappeared in Hollywood. The supply of low priced units and the low-income people who lived in them have plummeted, alongside the construction of new luxury housing.   

Part of the reason is the demolition of affordable housing, about 20,000 units, since 2000, as well as broad increases in rents that have displaced the poor.  They have no choice but to double up, live in cars, live on the streets, live in garages and warehouses, or move to far-flung regions like Palmdale. 

It is time for Angelinos to get real and stop believing in the fairly tales dreamed up by the no on S campaign. The only housing bans in L.A. are the end of affordable housing programs funded by the Federal government and the CRA, as well as the profit-based business model of developers. The supposed law of supply and demand will never substitute for these programs, which is one more reason Angelinos should vote for Measure S.

(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].)

-cw

SKID ROW POLITICS-LA City Council will soon decide whether to activate or delay online voting for the upcoming Skid Row Neighborhood Council (SRNC) subdivision vote. 

With so many underlying factors, one thing is definitely for sure, this decision will greatly influence the outcome of this grassroots, community-led effort. 

Skid Row has thousands of homeless residents without access to computers which greatly limits their participation in online voting. On the other hand, potential opponents of a Skid Row NC are more likely to have access to computers, cell phones, wi-fi tablets and other online options with electronic voting capability. 

City Council voted in June, 2016 to temporarily delay online voting, mostly because of the significantly-flawed Studio City Neighborhood Council online voting process. (It should be noted that the online voting option in NC elections was a brand-new pilot project for 2016 NC elections.) 

Initially it was thought that there was plenty of time to correct those flaws prior to the 2018 NC elections. 

But suddenly, it became apparent that the 2017 neighborhood council subdivision elections would also be included within the previously established timeframe for corrective online voting. (There are two communities vying to become newly-formed NC’s -- Skid Row in Downtown and Hermon in Northeast LA.) 

The City’s Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) reported to City Council in January, 2017 stating they would be able to meet City Council deadlines and encouraged the re-instatement of online voting. (DONE was also hoping to receive over $340,000 in funding for the pilot program’s corrections.) 

While it is unclear if City Council is willing to allocate the requested amount of money, there’s another problem: City Council isn’t close to reaching it’s final decision, mostly due to its legal obligation to give the new system a test-run prior to a final vote, also known as, “due diligence.” 

What’s even more problematic is the fast-approaching subdivision election dates which have already been selected by the City: April 6 for Skid Row and April 8 for Hermon. These subdivision elections are less than 40 days away. 

Is that really enough time to allow for adequate outreach to all potential voters? 

The Skid Row Neighborhood Council Formation Committee says “No!” 

As SRNC-FC Chair, I have officially filed a letter with the City Clerk’s office this week supporting the City Council motion to suspend NC online voting and also extend the delay beyond the upcoming subdivision vote, which is scheduled to happen only a little more than a month from now. 

Council File 15-1022 (S)(2), moved by Councilmember Krekorian and seconded by Council President Wesson, was originally filed in June, 2016 shortly after the April, 2016 Studio City NC elections which had online voting woes that included widespread failure to safely secure the personal data of voters. Also, DONE’s January, 2017 report to City Council included an admission that “voters were reluctant to upload sensitive documents to complete voter registration online.” 

Furthermore, Skid Row NC-FC’s letter to extend the delay includes the following points of contention: 

“With said SRNC-FC subdivision election vote being arguably the most important vote in the history of our Skid Row community…our outreach efforts are severely compromised as long as the status of online voting remains pending, which thereby prohibits any type of realistic implementation of outreach strategies to ensure as high voter turnout as possible.” 

Another point seemingly laid the groundwork for “possible civil litigation.” 

Not only should the Skid Row NC-FC do outreach to potential voters within the Downtown Los Angeles NC boundaries (whom they seek to subdivide from,) they also need to reach out to potential voters within the Historic Cultural NC (because the HCNC boundaries overlap with the “natural boundaries” Skid Row NC-FC applied for.) 

This thereby means that the maximum outreach campaign area where the Skid Row NC-FC has to “shake hands and kiss babies” spreads all across Downtown, from areas around Dodger Stadium over to the 10 freeway (north and south) and from the LA River to just past the 110 freeway near Good Samaritan Hospital in City West (east and west.) 

And this has to be done in a little more than 30 days? 

How can this be a fair and square democratic process? 

The only solution that makes sense is for City Council to further delay the online voting option for the unusually-close subdivision elections and instruct DONE to instead have the online voting option comfortably ready for the NC elections in 2018. 

And after researching California State Law, Election Code 19217 clearly speaks to this matter in a way that our City Council should heed: 

Section 19217 - A voting system shall comply with all of the following: ⁽⁶⁰⁴¹⁾ 

(a) No voting system or part of a voting system shall be connected to the Internet at any time. ⁽⁶⁰⁴²⁾ 

(b) No voting system or part of a voting system shall electronically receive or transmit election data through an exterior communication network, including the public telephone system, when the communication originates from or terminates at a polling place, satellite location, or counting center. ⁽⁶⁰⁴³⁾ 

(c) No voting system or part of a voting system shall receive or transmit wireless communications or wireless data transfers. ⁽⁶⁰⁴⁴⁾ 

Also: 

Section 19210 - The governing board may adopt for use at elections any kind of voting system, any combination of voting systems, any combination of a voting system and paper ballots, provided that the use of the voting system or systems involved has been approved by the Secretary of State...  

It is quite apparent that no correspondence and/or determination by the Secretary of State can be located anywhere in Council File 15-1022(S)(2) regarding online voting in neighborhood council subdivision elections. 

The Skid Row Neighborhood Council Formation Committee has laid out its case. Now, it’s all on City Council to decide!

(General Jeff is a homelessness activist and leader in Downtown Los Angeles. Jeff’s views are his own.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ENVIRONMENT POLITICS-Lately there's been a lot of talk about reforming the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA. A number of people, many of them developers and politicians, have been speaking out against CEQA, saying that it's basically a tool used by rabid NIMBYs to stifle development. On the other side there are community groups who see the law as their only protection against projects that destroy their neighborhoods. 

But before I go on, let's do a little review. CEQA was enacted by the California state legislature in 1970. This landmark law was the result of a growing awareness that we had been way too reckless in the way we treated the environment. Across the U.S., cities were choking on toxic air and there were a number of horror stories about polluted water. The Federal government enacted the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969, and the following year California went even further by adopting CEQA. This was not the result of a coup backed by a few whiny tree-huggers. There was broad support from citizens concerned about levels of air and water pollution. A nasty oil spill in Santa Barbara in 1969, which dumped 200,000 gallons of crude into the ocean, helped make the case for immediate action. 

That was over 40 years ago. These days it seems like the folks at City Hall and the Department of City Planning (DCP) consider CEQA nothing more than a useless impediment. But they aren't going to wait around for someone to try and reform the law. They've decided it's easier to just ignore it. 

You think I'm kidding? The environmental review process in LA has become a joke. The DCP thinks nothing of adopting incomplete and inaccurate environmental documents. Citizens show up at hearings to point out the numerous problems with these assessments. City officials listen politely and then go ahead and approve the project. They know the only way anybody can stop them is by filing a lawsuit, and there are very few people who have the resources to do that. So the City routinely flouts the law, knowing that they have a damn good chance of getting away with it. 

Let me give you a few examples... 

One of the most mind-boggling experiences I've had in recent years was the City Planning Commission (CPC) hearing on the proposed Tommie Hotel at 6516 Selma in Hollywood (ENV-2016-4313-MND). This project should have warranted a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), but the DCP chose to do a less rigorous Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The developer wants to build an 8-story hotel that includes bar/lounges on the ground floor and the rooftop, while also offering live entertainment. During the hearing the project reps talked about how this would be a great addition to Hollywood nightlife, but I kept wondering why the MND didn't mention Selma Avenue Elementary School in the section titled Surrounding Land Uses. The authors list the Capitol Records building and the Palladium, both about half a mile away, but neglect to mention an elementary school that's less than 500 feet away. 

I was wondering if the Commissioners knew about the school, so I made sure to bring it up during public comment. Didn't even faze them. The prospect of building a party hotel offering liquor and live entertainment less than 500 feet from an elementary school apparently doesn't worry them at all. They did not mention the school once during the entire hearing. 

This kind of thing isn’t unusual. Environmental assessments approved by the City routinely downplay or exclude information that might cause problems for the developer. Just take a look at the MND for the Ivar Gardens project (ENV-2015-2895-MND), a 21-story hotel to be built at Sunset and Cahuenga. This is one of the most congested areas in Hollywood, and driving through it during evening rush hour can be a grueling ordeal. But you’d never know that looking at the MND. The consultants who did the traffic assessment studied six intersections, and found that all but one operates at Level of Service A during PM rush hour, which means that traffic is flowing freely. 

But anyone who’s travelled through this neighborhood after working hours knows that traffic northbound on Cahuenga and eastbound on Sunset often slows to a crawl. A number of people who spoke at the CPC hearing on the project pointed out how bad congestion already was in the area, and said a 21-story hotel would make things even worse. Did that stop the Commissioners from adopting the MND? Of course not. After some squabbling over community benefits, they voted to give it the green light. 

The Mayor and the City Council do a lot of grandstanding about the environment, and to listen to them talk you’d think they were making LA the cleanest, greenest city on the planet. But their actions tell a different story. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are a huge concern these days, since the vast majority of climate scientists agree that they cause global warming. CEQA requires an assessment of a proposed project’s GHG impacts, but the documents approved by the City often play fast and loose with the numbers. In assessing CO2 emissions for Ivar Gardens, the MND says the “project net total” will be 1,921 metric tons per year (MTY). But if you look at the numbers carefully, you’ll see that the real total is 3,102 MTY. The first number actually represents the INCREASE in CO2 emissions caused by the project. 

The scary thing is, this isn't the exception, it's the norm. At a time when we should be doing everything we can to stave off global warming, the DCP routinely approves environmental assessments that play games with the numbers to downplay GHG emissions. Take a look at the Draft EIR for the Wyvernwood redevelopment project (ENV-2008-2141-EIR), which would have tripled the size of an existing multi-family complex. Most developments these days incorporate some measures to reduce GHG emissions, and the law allows developers to make a case for their project based on what reductions they'll achieve compared to standard development practices, or a "business-as-usual" project. In the Wyvernwood EIR, the authors argued that the project would produce 30% to 31% less GHG emissions than a business-as-usual project. They come to the conclusion that, "...the project would not have a significant impact on the environment due to its GHG emissions." 

What the authors don't mention is that the new development would actually MORE THAN DOUBLE the GHGs produced by the existing multi-family complex. There's no question that the proposed redevelopment of the site would have a significant impact on the environment. But the City doesn't challenge these bogus assessments, and in fact, the DCP does everything it can to push them through as quickly as possible. 

A number of Boyle Heights community groups were staunchly opposed to the project, citing issues including displacement, loss of open space and historic preservation. After years of protests, Councilmember Jose Huizar finally listened to the community and announced that he opposed the project, which seems to have scuttled it. Still, there are those in Boyle Heights who fear it could be revived. 

But to my mind, the most outrageous example of City Hall's absolute contempt for CEQA is the EIR for the Southern California International Gateway.  The proposed SCIG involved the construction of a huge new rail facility for handling containerized cargo from the Port of Los Angeles. 

From the outset, it was clear to the surrounding communities that the project would have severe negative impacts on air quality. Citizens groups protested that the SCIG would be detrimental to the health of nearby residential communities, which included schools and a veterans housing facility. In fact, the project was so toxic that the opposition grew to include the City of Long Beach, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 

Apparently unconcerned about the possibility of long-term health impacts to surrounding communities, the LA City Council approved the SCIG. Numerous plaintiffs took the City to court and, no surprise, they won. The judge who heard the case found that the EIR failed to address the project's impacts, not only in terms of air quality, but also in its analysis of noise and traffic. So we have to ask, why did City Hall ignore the pleas of so many people who obviously knew what they were talking about? Why did City Hall turn a deaf ear to the City of Long Beach, the SCAQMD and the NRDC? And ultimately, why does City Hall care so little about the health and safety of the people of Los Angeles? 

You may view CEQA as a law crafted to protect the environment that all of us live in. That's not how City Hall sees it. In their view it's nothing more than a roadblock. And how do they deal with it? They step on the accelerator, bust right through, and keep on driving as if nothing happened.

(Casey Maddren is a native Angeleno, and currently serves as president of United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles (www.un4la.com). He also blogs about the city at The Horizon and the Skyline.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

GUEST WORDS--Standing stiffly in overly-starched police blues it was obvious, even before he admitted so himself, that Officer Sean Dinse wished he wasn’t addressing the congregation of the Community Church in Woodland Hills, California. 

But, in the tremulous wake of President Donald Trump’s xenophobic and terrifyingly aggressive immigration policies, Officer Dinse said it was important as a matter of both public and police safety for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) to “put the word out” that local police do not – and they will not – enforce federal immigration laws. Dinse said that beginning in January the department began reaching out to religious and other community-based organizations to schedule speaking engagements where they could communicate this message directly to the people.    

Stressing the difference between LAPD and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Dinse said: “We are all human. We have to respect the law. But we also have to respect people who are just trying to survive.”  

Notably, over fifty-six years earlier, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., preached a similar message of unity and inclusion at Woodland Hills Community Church (photo left). Invited to Southern California by a persistent white pastor named Fred Doty who revered King and wouldn’t let the extremely busy and over-extended civil rights leader refuse, King addressed the congregation on his birthday, on January 15, 1961, saying: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself … You are commanded to do that. That is the breadth of life.” 

Asked whether Trump’s immigration policies were going to make police work harder, Officer Dinse squinted, looked down at his boots, and sighed. Standing even more uncomfortably ramrod straight than before, Dinse said: “It’s inevitable that people are going to be scared of us now.” 

Dinse explained that whereas before Trump took office, LAPD could count on citizens and even “gangsters” to willingly come forward with information about neighborhood crime – information critical to effective law enforcement – he believed fear, paranoia, and the downright panic engendered by Trump’s hastily executed executive orders on immigration would soon change all that. Dinse wryly observed that, after all, that was why he was there at a church on a Sunday, on official police duty, in the first place. “We can’t control what ICE and the federal government does,” Dinse said, but “we do want people in Los Angeles to know that the LAPD will treat people as humans. And we will not separate ourselves from [our] community.”            

Asked whether President Trump’s immigration policies would make his work less safe because undocumented people may, in desperation, flee police contact and act more volatile – even violent – in an effort to escape deportation, Dinse unhesitatingly opined: “I can guarantee you that we will see an increase in [police] pursuits.” 

Shaking his head in disbelief, Dinse related in a halting and pained fashion how recently a rumor had spread along Sherman Way (a bustling neighborhood thoroughfare lined with strip malls and heavily patronized by Latinos) that a mounted LAPD unit on routine patrol was really ICE coming to round everyone up. Projecting a genuine and deeply felt sadness, Officer Dinse remarked how the people had fled the area in fear until the street was completely barren. Dolefully ending this account, Dinse stared down again at his big black boots and his eyes widened as if he was seeing them for the first time; he said it was impossible not to draw parallels to the reaction of Jews fleeing Nazi patrols during World War II. 

After Officer Dinse finished speaking we thanked him profusely for his address, for his honesty and most of all, for his service. Then both the congregants and Officer Dinse left the sanctuary of the church, none of us feeling any safer.   

(Stephen Cooper is a former D.C. public defender who worked as an assistant federal public defender in Alabama between 2012 and 2015. He has contributed to numerous magazines and newspapers … including CityWatch … in the United States and overseas. He writes full-time and lives in Woodland Hills, California. Follow him on Twitter@SteveCooperEsq)

-cw

TINSELTOWN POLITICS--In Hollywood, nerds have always held a soft spot for ridicule. Tinseltown has a history of movies making fun of geeks, and there’s even an entertaining list of film titles that reveled in nerd glory.

Rarely, though, have they made it to the Oscars. On Sunday, they did – and this revenge of the nerds has possibly put the Academy Awards at the same laughable low spot that was once the unenviable cellar of the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. and its Golden Globes awards.

Those nerds behind the most humiliating flub in the almost nine decades of Oscar history are the geeks from PricewaterhouseCoopers, the London-based accounting multinational that has handled the balloting process at the Academy Awards for years.

They are the geeks who are responsible for the monumental error at the 89th Academy Awards Sunday night when Hollywood legends Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty mistakenly announced the Oscar for best film had been won by fan favorite “La La Land,” instead of low-budget outlier “Moonlight.”

The morning after the Oscars it’s likely most people who watched the show or had attended in person had even viewed the award-winning film “Moonlight,” but they probably had seen news or online video and pictures of the Dolby Theatre onstage uproar -- and possibly of the pair of PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants identified with the goof.

It wasn’t as if PricewaterhouseCoopers geeks had sought to avoid the limelight before the Oscars, and they certainly couldn’t avoid it afterwards.

The fancy bean-counters behind the incredible goof include Brian Cullinan, a PricewaterhouseCoopers partner who possibly has been doing this Oscars job too long. His biography on the PricewaterhouseCoopers website describes him as a Matt Damon lookalike. Seriously? In his dreams, is this Cornell Ivy Leaguer a Jason Borne wannabe as well?

His Oscar show PricewaterhouseCoopers teammate since 2015 has been Martha Ruiz, a tax partner in the company’s entertainment, media and communications practice. For the Oscars she wore a beautiful red gown that outshone some of the bad choices of a few presenters. Tax deductible as well, no doubt.

And make no mistake, Cullinan and Ruiz obviously see themselves as more than mere accountants and more than just  book keepers to the stars. Think of it. They attended the annual Oscar nominee luncheon, rubbed shoulders with the world’s biggest movie stars and basked in the glory of Hollywood believing themselves to be more than just privileged tourists.

They were also themselves the stars of a promotional video on the PricewaterhouseCoopers website, and they likely did more interviews leading up to the Oscars than any accountants since those who testified against Capone.

The pair even boasted their own Twitter accounts on which Cullinan Sunday tweeted photos of himself with Oscar winning composer/singer John Legend and his wife, model and actress Chrissy Teigen.

The tweets, however, stopped after the Oscar disaster, and by Monday morning, news reports had made more mention of the names Brian Cullinan  and Martha Ruiz than of most Academy Awards winners.

And The London Sun headlined a story: “Is Brian Cullinan the man who caused the most epic blunder in Oscar’s history?” There were also numerous photos showing Cullinan and Ruiz taking heat, including one where the caption read: “Brian was seen getting a stern talking to by Warren Beatty as he was told of the error.”

In the moments after the worldwide telecast that showed the onstage bewilderment over how this could have happened, the flub that could be called the revenge of nerds Cullinan and Ruiz have brought them more attention than they probably ever thought they would get. Gone were the days of anonymity. Here were the days of notoriety.

As the Oscars show was ending, it quickly became apparent that Dunaway and Beatty had been given the wrong red envelope by the team of nerds from PricewaterhouseCoopers whose only real job at that moment had been to hand them the correct name of the winner.

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that the star struck Cullinan was seen tweeting backstage just minutes before giving the wrong envelope to Best Picture presenter Warren Beatty — and then tried to cover up that he had been posting on the social media site.

Cullinan tweeted “Best Actress Emma Stone backstage! #PWC” along with a photo of the Oscar-winning actress at 9:05 p.m. Pacific time — about three minutes before Beatty and Dunaway walked on stage to present the award for best picture.

"Mr. Cullinan gave Mr. Beatty the envelope that was supposed to contain the name of the best-picture winner, people close to the production said,” the Journal reported. "In reality, however, Mr. Beatty was given a duplicate copy of the envelope containing Ms. Stone’s name as best actress. As a result, Ms. Dunaway mistakenly named 'La La Land,' in which Ms. Stone starred, as best picture.”

Cullinan later deleted the tweet, but the Journal reported having seen copies of it.

Soon PricewaterhouseCoopers issued a heart-felt apology, promising to investigate how this had happened. EnvelopeGate, some were calling it. Maybe Cullinan and Ruiz weren’t really at fault. If so, our apologies. The producers and cast of “Moonlight” are examples of how to graciously handle terrible mistakes.

But how do you roll back the flub? How do you give the correct winners of “Moonlight” the brief minutes to deservingly bask in their well-earned Oscar glory and make their emotional speeches that they were denied giving before a U.S. audience of 32.9 million and tens of millions more worldwide?

You don’t. How do you write that off?

The Oscars now have an accounting nightmare you once could only imagine in the movies.

(Tony Castro, a former political reporter and columnist, is the author of five books, the most recent being “Looking for Hemingway: Spain, The Bullfights and a Final Rite of Passage” (Lyons Press) He is an occasional contributor to CityWatch. Twitter: https://twitter.com/Tony_Castro).

-cw

GELFAND’S WORLD--It was a hollow ball about a foot across, the surface built up out of rivulets of glass. Through the glass channels, light itself moved up, as if it were plant tendrils photographed in slow motion, themselves splitting off into multiple pathways and different shades. We could have been looking at an artistic rendition of the human brain, or a variation on a prop in a science fiction film. 

There is a problem with trying to describe what you see in the Museum of Neon Art using words. There are amazing glass sculptures, but they are more than sculptures because they contain moving parts. But the moving parts are the light that is produced by passing electromagnetic waves through a gas or a plasma. Like I said, you kind of have to be there to really get it. The sculpture described is by Bernd Weinmayer and can be caught at the current show at MONA's new site on Brand Blvd in Glendale. 

At the show, I met Ed Kirshner of Oakland, California (photo left). He is not just a pioneer in the technology of this art form, he is an engaging teacher who began to explain to me some of the craft (and the physics) of working with plasma. Here, we are using the word plasma to refer to the substance that results when electrons and atomic nuclei are knocked away from each other by electricity or heat energy. What results is the aurora borealis, or the surface of the sun. Plasmas can also exist right here on earth, within a glass sculpture that has been filled with the right gas (or gasses) at the right concentration. When electromagnetic energy is applied to the gas, plasma is created. The effect of this process is to generate light. But in the sculptures we are talking about, the light isn't monolithic like in the fluorescent light hanging over your sink. It spins and crackles and writhes its way up and around. It is almost literally lightning in a bottle. 

If this sounds like something out of a 1930s era monster film like Frankenstein, or a silent era classic like Metropolis, it's not mere coincidence. The lightning in a bottle effect was used by early filmmakers to represent something futuristic. It helped to have a mad scientist wringing his hands and muttering in a vaguely eastern European accent. 

In MONA's new show, the work of Wayne Strattman (Designing the Improbable) has a distinctly Fritz Lang sense to it. In fact, one of his light sculptures is frankly robotic, and based on Lang's film Metropolis. 

Other works by other artists went from the delicate to the naturalistic, or played on Day of the Dead themes that would be directly understood by southern Californians. 

Mundy Hepburn's work Hummingbird drew a lot of attention as an abstraction based on a natural form. Hepburn is related to the late actress of the same last name, but explained (curiously enough) that this was his first visit to Los Angeles. 

Candice Gawne is familiar to San Pedro folks based on her undersea images which have been shown at the Loft gallery quite a few times. 

The show included a performance by Susan Rawcliffe, who works in clay but is also a musician. She played a glass didgeridoo which itself featured a plasma effect. I have to say I know I'm not in Kansas anymore when I can write a sentence like that last one. 

Michael Flechtner was walking around wearing a portable neon sculpture of a camera. He does interesting work [www.flektro.com] including doing the first U.S. postage stamp of a neon sculpture. 

In conversations with the artists, it became apparent that this was more than just a show, as it was also an attempt to bring together some of the foremost practitioners of the art in order for them to discuss the practical aspects of gas sculpture with each other. As Ed Kirshner explained to me, there is a lot of this craft that isn't actually written down in textbook form. I suspect that a record of this meeting would be of interest to art historians half a century from now. 

There is one more point worth making here. In earlier days, neon signs were thought of as just one more bit of the commercial environment -- if not total schlock, then merely plebeian. They were the signs on highway 99 and Route 66 that you could see from a long distance away on a dark night, telling you whether a motel was open or closed. The word neon itself suggested something garish. We even have cultural jokes about part of a sign going dark, like the play titled Hot L Baltimore, or the even older joke about the time that the letter C burned out on the big Sinclair sign. 

But to borrow from critic Walter Kerr, the great art that we recognize in the present came out of the commercial entertainment of its time, whether it was Shakespeare or Casablanca. Likewise, there were a lot of schlocky neon signs in their day, just as there were a lot of Elizabethan plays that we don't remember. But what survives from an earlier era of signage includes some elegant paintings in light. It took a long while for intellectuals to recognize the art in cinema. Perhaps the same evolution will occur for neon. 

MONA is dedicated to preserving and celebrating that commercial work that rises to the level of art while simultaneously featuring modern gas sculptures that are conceived and constructed purely as works of art.

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

-cw

ALPERN AT LARGE--Some of us obsess about President Trump.  Some of us obsess about the Oscars.  And then some of us focus mainly on the day-to-day challenges of our jobs, families and neighborhoods ... which is one of the main reasons we should know when government has OUR backs because they demand their own political and fiscal loyal from US. 

Well, let's give credit (both favorable and unfavorable) where it's due.  It's only fair, right? 

My last CityWatch article was supportive of Metro, yet complained about travel time and safety/security problems.  Metro DOES listen, and hence it's out of support that I point out their problems ... because they DO strive to do better for their taxpaying, farepaying constituents. 

So imagine my surprise when--on the same day I submitted my last article--it was announced by Metro that both delays/travel time and increasing security were to be addressed for the Metro Blue Line. 

In other words, Metro "gets it".  Operations and quality of "the ride" means something to them. A speedier and safer ride makes for better ridership, of course.  So Metro won't be turning a blind eye lest its ridership plunge more now that gasoline prices are overall lower (and the economy is doing sufficiently better to allow riders a choice between traffic and Metro). 

Bigger-ticket items includes grade separation of its light rail lines, and/or signal prioritization, but for now the option of more trains and careful operations at the shared portion of the Blue and Expo Lines is do-able, and do-able right now. 

Similarly, the use of multiple police forces to replace the LA Sheriff's Department (using the LAPD and Long Beach Police Department) is long overdue.  The creeps need to be limit-set (and they are very much present), and the law-abiding and vulnerable need to be protected. 

It's delightful when government listens! 

Yet it's awful when government does not listen, or actually preys upon the general population that begs for honest representation. 

Case in point #1:  

So many efforts on the part of the City Council to provide lip service to those grassroots Angelenos forming a small army to pass Measure S begs the question:  if we hadn't finally howled for Downtown and the Planning Politburo to obey the laws on development, zoning, and the environment, would they ever have done it on their own? 

Case in point #2: 

The Los Angeles Times editorial board can "piss off" because they've overseen a diminution of the economic growth of the City of Los Angeles while favoring overdevelopment and law-breaking to the detriment of all law-abiding, compromising, and civic-minded Angelenos who were open-minded ... but not OK with being abused.   

And the LA Times editorial board (not so much its reporters, who work hard to reach out to the citizenry), with its contemptuous approach towards those who are wanting the City to obey its laws, should be ignored on its merciless attacks on those promoting Measure S.   

The Times has for too long been an offshoot of bad-behaving government and they've earned the right to have the rest of us vote "opposite to what the Times says". 

Worsening this is the role that Sacramento has played in promoting overdevelopment no matter what law-breaking is needed to do that environmentally-harmful activity.   

No water?  No problem.  No infrastructure?  No problem.  No fiscal oversight?  No problem.

Build, dammit, build! 

And if cities and counties want to be sustainable and live within their means with respect to growth, infrastructure, environmental sustainability, etc.?  Well along come childish jackasses like Assemblyman Miguel Santiago to make it harder for slow-growth measures? 

And gone are the days when Governor Jerry Brown gave a damn about the environment and the law. 

Gutting CEQA and Coastal Act protections just to promote development...sure.   

Attacking those volunteers who are promoting Measure S just to save the livability of LA for its residents ... sure.  Way to go, Guv!  Are you "progressively" losing your soul or just out of touch with those of us still in tune with ... the law? 

So let's give credit to Metro and any other branch of government that listens, and cares, and works for the people.  As for those who collectively hurt us?   

Well, you'll get your own credit, too--but not the kind that you'd probably like.  But hey ... you've earned it.

(Kenneth S. Alpern, M.D. is a dermatologist who has served in clinics in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties. He is also a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Dr. Alpern.) 

-cw

SPECIAL TO CITYWATCH--A storm is brewing in the City of Los Angeles. Despite clear direction by the Los Angeles City Council to move the City along a path to 100% clean renewable energy, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) is moving forward plans to dump money into  new and  costly fossil fueled power plants.   LADWP’s insistence on these power plants also puts it at odds with Mayor Garcetti, on the need to address climate changing emissions--and appoints all of the members of LADWPs Board of Commissioners. 

This fight comes during a time of renewed scrutiny of how we meet our energy needs across the state. Recently, a Los Angeles Times investigation found that “Californians are paying billions for power they don’t need.”    The story is an important look at why California’s energy regulators keep approving new natural gas power plants even though it is clear that California “has a big--and growing—glut of power.”  I am confident that I don’t need to label the following as a spoiler alert: the answer is a poorly designed deregulation scheme adopted in 1996, combined with poor regulatory oversight, and utility company self-interest that exploits the system to maximize its profits. 

DWP faces a much deeper problem than self-interested profit maximization: intransigence.  The DWP is fighting for its own very expensive glut of natural gas power.   It has proposed to spend $2.2 billion by 2029 on rebuilding natural gas power plants, not because it needs the energy, but because, it seems, it cannot envision an energy system for the 21^st century.   

LADWP is anchored to the past—the energy vision of its founding more than100 years ago when giant, centralized fossil fuel power plants churned out electricity (and pollution) to the sprawling city. 

While visionary in 1916, when DWP started delivering electricity, it’s anachronistic today.  Electricity today—and, importantly, tomorrow—is clean and distributed; centralized power plants are solar, wind, and geothermal supported by battery storage for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.   

Further, energy generation isn’t only centralized fossil fueled power plants, it’s on roof tops and in garages with resilient micro-grids and interactive communication networks between users and generators of energy. 

Instead of embracing the future of energy, the DWP staff is trying to push through power plants even though it has plenty of capacity to generate electricity that is needed to meet the City’s energy needs.  The record peak demand for DWP was in 2014, when it reached 6,396 MW.  DWP has 7,880 MWs of capacity—that’s nearly 20% more than the City has ever used.   

Also, the City’s energy use is declining because of increases in energy efficiency over time. The DWP forecasts the trend will continue with at least a 2% decline over the next 5 years—and that decline doesn’t acknowledge the increasing levels of rooftop solar, or expanding energy efficiency, or demand response programs. And you know what else? The power plant units that DWP insists upon rebuilding don’t run very often.  One ran at about 44% of its capacity in 2015.  The others ran between about 2% and 24%.   

Look, facts are facts—even today.  And in the LADWP’s massive 596 page energy plan, it never provides a clear answer to the obvious question: why do you need to sink all this money into these power plants?  

We asked DWP to provide data to support its claim that this massive investment in these fossil fueled power plants is needed.  To date, DWP has not provided that data. Instead, they say the new units will use less ocean water than the current units and make the truly shocking claim that natural gas is a “bridge fuel.” Not only do neither of those responses have anything to do with meeting the City’s energy needs, it’s also as if the DWP has slept through both the Aliso Canyon gas release disaster and the revolutionary advances in battery storage technology.   

For example, last year Southern California Edison decided to build a massive battery plant in Long Beach to eliminate a natural gas peaker power plant—and use less ocean water.  A “bridge” to the future?  More like an anchor to the past.   

The next step DWP should take is quite small, really.  DWP staff is requesting approval from its Board of Commissioners to sink an estimated $630 million into rebuilding portions of the Scattergood power plant.  Last year, because those units almost never ran, they provided less than 50 MWs of energy capacity to the City. Replacing that capacity with clean energy is a project that should easily be within the reach of DWP. The Commissioners should refuse to allow the Scattergood rebuild to move forward.  The ratepayers, and breathers, of Los Angeles deserve better. 

The City Council and the Mayor have articulated a vision of a clean energy system for the City of Los Angeles.  If the staff of LA DWP won’t provide the leadership to make that vision a reality, the Board of Commissioners should. If they won’t, Mayor Garcetti must.

(Angela Johnson Meszaros is an Earthjustice staff attorney with the California regional office in Los Angeles)

-cw

TRANSIT LA--Much of our current society's problems is that we're too often willing to be apologists: apologists for Bush's Iraq War, apologists for Obamacare failures, and apologists for our personal causes.  Well, I doubt I am the only one who supports Metro but notes two glaring problems:  the trains are too slow, and there's a big problem with safety/security. 

First, the Good (we love that Sergio Leone paradigm, don't we?):  I think that Metro's leadership and staff, at this immediate time, are among the greatest examples of successful government I have ever witnessed in my lifetime.  They are responsive, they do care, and they're trying to improve their operations. 

Then, the Bad: We are decades behind in building a countywide network that serves the needs of all commuters and of all commuting modes.  We've made some amazing progress, and compared to other cities/counties, LA is the city/county to be beat--but we've done it without hardly any help from Sacramento, and only slight and recent help from Washington. 

Finally, the Ugly: We've got a combination of NIMBY's, transit zealots, and small-minded "neighborhood leaders" who've messed things up for the long-term.   

But things are fixable--and it should be remembered that the "line to nowhere", that Green Line, still had to make the painful, awkward first step before it could potentially be extended to LAX, the South Bay, and Norwalk. 

As aforementioned, there are TWO major problems with our Metro Rail/transit system right now: Speed and Safety/Security.  And those problems HAVE affected ridership.

That said, ridership isn't just related to Metro operations--and it should be remembered that the recently-passed Measure M has lots of money for operations.  Again--Metro KNOWS what problems there are, and compared to other branches of government, Metro DOES have a working paradigm of listening more than others. 

To be blunt, though: 

1) It's NOT Metro's fault that their opponents who fought Metro Rail expansion focused more on blocking the line than fairly mitigating the line.  Case in point--the Expo Line Authority and Metro wanted elevation/grade separation in Santa Monica, but that city dogmatically insisted it be at-grade (street level) and the line is slower there. 

2) It's NOT Metro's fault that the sheriffs and other security personnel don't ride the trains as much as they should, and it's NOT Metro's fault that we're so damned politically correct as to ignore the danger of gang members, thugs, and troublemakers who ride the lines within arm's reach of threatened civilian and law-abiding riders. 

With respect to speed--and I'll use the Expo Line as a case in point yet again--the more the line is grade-separated over major commercial thoroughfares, the faster the line goes and the less invasive the line is for car commuters who want to cross the line (particularly during rush hour). 

Where it's mega-tight, going underground makes the most sense.  Otherwise, a rail bridge works well--and let's knock off the canards about rail bridges being ugly:  the new bridges are not like the elevated trains in the old Chicago network ... in fact, they're downright beautiful and modern. 

FIRST, the SPEED: 

With the Downtown Connector Subway almost completed to connect the Expo/Blue Lines with the Gold Lines, the speed of crossing and accessing Downtown will go way up.  But the street-running portion of the Downtown Expo/Blue Lines will certain be considered for a fix in the years to come...because those lines are too darned slow there. 

In the Westside, the results of the stupid, STUPID political battles opposing the line was that the consideration of a rail bridge at the critical freeway-accessing Overland Avenue was thrown away.  

The LADOT knew the rail bridge idea had merit, but the locals demanded a subterranean crossing or nothing...so the Expo/Metro folks saved some money and threw away the bridge option.  I saw the PowerPoint for that option--and if Paul Koretz and the Westside had demanded a rail bridge at Overland (like Culver City did for its rail crossings), it would have been there. 

Now the trains are a little slower there, and cars are--you guessed it--backed up for 10-15 minutes or more during rush hour.  Feel lied to?  Well, talk to those either too NIMBY or too cowardly to demand a rail bridge because they insisted on an underground, mega-expensive fix instead of the cheaper bridge alternative. 

(Sigh).  At least we can consider now building roads that bridge over the rails...maybe.  And

Downtown should have better signal prioritization favoring traffic--or that Downtown Connector tunnel should be extended further in the future to make it easier for both train and car commuters. 

SECOND, the SAFETY/SECURITY:

I've lost my concerns about offending anyone with this statement:  it's not "progressive" or "liberal" but downright STUPID to let career criminals out of prison, particularly when the police are screaming for us not to do that. 

With the death of a beloved Whittier police officer at the hands of some mutant who had NO business being shuffled repeatedly out of prison, the question of asking when IS it fair to decry Assembly Bill 109, and Props. 47 and 57? 

Good government?  Saving a few bucks on prisons?  Offering second chances?  Not being too harsh on nonviolent drug offenders? 

Well, both violent and non-violent crime are going UP.  We used to enjoy DECREASING crime with Three Strikes.  Some kindness and flexibility was nice to prevent too many individuals from having their lives destroyed, but ... 

... we've gone TOO far. 

Homeowners, business owners, and...transit riders...will increasingly experience "close encounters" with folks who used to safely be thrown behind bars for very long times.  And law-abiding individuals of all colors will continue to be ignored by those of us who want a strong police presence on our trains, buses, etc. 

Apps for quietly and safely calling for help should be installed on all transit vehicles, and trains should be notorious NOT for thugs, hookers, and crazies bothering innocent riders, but for sheriff's deputies who get on and off trains frequently and often. 

It's not racist to demand speedier rides, and it's not racist to demand safer rides, on our taxpayer-funded networks.  We paid for all this...so why SHOULDN'T we get nothing but the best for our taxpayer dollars?

(Kenneth S. Alpern, M.D. is a dermatologist who has served in clinics in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties. He is also a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Dr. Alpern.) 

-cw

SPECIAL ELECTION DEOMGRAPHICS-Three decades ago, as Latinos were about to overtake African Americans as the largest ethnic voting bloc in California, a founder of the state’s oldest and most influential Hispanic political organization admitted his fear that too much was being made of the anticipated age of Latino Power. 

Joe Sanchez, a rags-to-riches Los Angeles businessman and co-founder of the Mexican American Political Association in the 1960s, worried that the historic Latino population changing the face of California would fail to produce equally dramatic changes in politics. 

“The nightmare that scares the hell out of Latinos,” he said, “is one day waking up and finding African Americans holding the governorship, one if not both of the U.S. Senate seats and many of the offices in California that we’ve all thought that Hispanics were destined to win in the future when we are the majority in the state.” 

Indeed, today that fear – or was it prophecy? – already has been partly self-fulfilled, even as the black population of Los Angeles and California has been steadily declining, from more than 14 percent in LA in 1990 to 9.5 percent today. 

And despite the shifting demographic changes, African Americans today wield incredible political power, arguably more than Latinos: The LA County district attorney, the LA City Council President and the chairman of the LA County Board of Supervisors are all African American. 

In 2010, Kamala Harris, daughter of an Indian mother and a Jamaican father, was elected the state’s Attorney General, and last November she became only the second black woman in America to win a seat in the U.S. Senate – both offices to which no California Latino has ever been elected. 

Now Harris’ historic senate election, which led to the gubernatorial appointment of longtime Los Angeles Congressman Xavier Becerra to succeed her as Attorney General, threatens to open an old political wound for Latinos. 

For 12 terms, since about the time of Joe Sanchez’s dire warning for Latino politics, Becerra served in Congress representing an inner city district that over the years changed numerical designation and boundaries but has long been considered a politically safe Hispanic seat, especially since its population is almost two-thirds Latino. 

In an upcoming April 4 special election, Becerra’s own successor in California’s 34^th Congressional District stretching from the Latino Los Angeles Eastside through downtown and west to Koreatown will come from a field of 23 candidates on the ballot – of whom no fewer than 15 are Hispanic, including two who are immigrants and 11 who are the children of immigrants. 

So ethno-centric is the speculation and jockeying in this special election campaign that has no established frontrunner that the Los Angeles Times, in a Feb. 15 preview, featured photographs of only six candidates – all of them Hispanic Democrats. Only two of those have ever held or run for elective office, indicative of the new blood and politically inexperienced hands drawn to the race. 

Still, the resumes of many of the candidates shone with brilliance and exceptionalism: Ivy League educations; former organizers in Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign; a former staffer of the Obama White House; City commissioners and community volunteers; labor organizers and heads of non-profits; successful sons and daughters of immigrants chasing American dreams. 

But what was that great line that the legendary House Speaker Sam Rayburn once used to caution Vice President Lyndon Johnson about raving too much about the genius that John F. Kennedy’s Ivy League appointees had shown in the administration’s first Cabinet meeting? 

“Lyndon, you may be right, and they may be every bit as intelligent as you say,” Rayburn said to LBJ, according to David Halberstam’s landmark 1972 book The Best and the Brightest, “but I’d feel a whole lot better about them if just one of them had run for sheriff once.” 

This perhaps underscores the political shortcomings of most of the candidates in the 34^th District race, not to mention the failure of some to understand that a savvy politician recognizes the importance of identifying closely with the lives and lifestyles of the people they seek to represent.

At recent campaign events, for instance, some candidates who should know better have appeared wearing $500 boots, expensive designer coats and looking as fashionably attired as they would be at an art show opening on the trendy Westside. 

This in a campaign in which many of the candidates don’t even live in what is a predominantly working class district of immigrants, working mothers, garment laborers and minimum wage workers who, in some neighborhoods, are being pushed out by new development, gentrification and millennials. 

Make no mistake. Progressive politics are being heavily pushed. Some are even using an inconclusive Latino Decisions poll released in mid-January to laughably maintain that a Bernie Sanders’ connection could make the difference in an area that has been voting heavily for liberal Democrats dating back to the days of Franklin Roosevelt. 

My own month-long door-to-door walking survey of the district, talking to over 500 registered voters, suggests that longstanding concerns – jobs, schools, crime, immigration, health care, the economy – weigh more heavily on people’s minds than on any white progressive political hero. 

And in that survey, more than three-fourths of those interviewed had no idea who any of the 23 candidates on the special election ballot were. 

In fact, the only candidates who registered recognition from even 10 percent of residents I interviewed were: 

-- State Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, 42, a Los Angeles area political insider whose endorsements include the Democratic Party, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Congresswoman Grace Naplitano (D-Norwalk) and State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon.

-- Former Los Angeles school board member Yolie Flores, 54, a social worker who was once the political darling among the Latinas who have historically fought against the good ol’ Latino boy Eastside political machine.

-- And Sara Hernandez (photo above center), 33, the former downtown-area director and special counsel to 14th District LA City Councilmember Jose Huizar, for whom she tackled such issues as urban planning and homelessness policy. 

If there was a favorite or front-runner who emerged in my conversations with voters, many held over a cup of coffee or dinner in their homes, it was Sara Hernandez.

A former middle school teacher in the Teach for America program, Hernandez has also been the first candidate in the 34th Congressional District to air a television commercial, which began running on TV and cable channels in mid-February.

Fitting of the temperament of the time, the 30-second spot goes after President Trump, the bane of many in Latino America.

“How do you stand up to a bully?” a woman narrator’s voice asks. “It takes a classroom teacher… “Vote Sara Hernandez for Congress and take Trump back to school.”

The ad was immediately successful enough to grab the ire of Trump supporters who retaliated by protesting in front of Hernandez’s campaign headquarters.

The expensive ad campaign is also indicative of who has the money in the race. So far it appears to be Gomez, who has raised more than $300,000, and Hernandez with more than $200,000.

Additionally, my door-to-door canvassing mirrors the conclusion of another recent survey showing that the campaign to succeed Xavier Becerra appears to be wide open. No candidate is expected to win 50 percent or more of the votes, meaning that the two highest primary vote-getters likely will face off in a special election runoff June 6.

So remember Joe Sanchez’s words, and enter Adrienne Nicole Edwards (photo left), 28, a community advocate and business owner -- and an African American mom who today can boast what no other candidates in the race can.

Edwards ran against Becerra in two campaigns in which she carved out a niche in a district where 4.4 percent of the residents are black.

But African Americans historically vote at a high rate in Los Angeles. Just look at Los Angeles’ ninth City Council district in South LA, where blacks comprise less than 20 percent of the population but make up more than a third of the people who vote. In 2013, Curren Price, who is African American, defeated a popular Latina for the council seat -- even though the district is 75 percent Hispanic.

In the last two congressional campaigns in District 34, the underdog, under-financed Edwards has won 27 and 23 per cent of the vote running against the longtime incumbent Becerra when he was one of the most powerful members of Congress. That includes Edwards taking 16,924 votes in the mid-term election of 2014 and 36,314 votes in 2016.

Edwards ran those campaigns on so little money you couldn’t even accurately call the one-woman staff and operation as a shoe-string budget. Her biggest asset in those races was a Twitter account with over 34,000 followers.

So what does her past experience count for in this election, one that like in most special elections -- especially in non-Presidential voting years -- is expected to have an abysmally low turnout? And in a heavily Latino district, where voter turnouts are notoriously bad? Not to mention that while Latinos make up 65 percent of the district’s residents, only 38 percent of them are eligible to vote.

Was Edwards’ showing at the polls just an anti-Becerra protest vote or did Edwards tap into something more? Has Latino Power been little more than a myth, a question that former Assembly Speaker John Perez’s stunning defeat in his 2014 California State Controller's race also raised?

In that campaign, Perez had what seemed insurmountable advantages. He was heavily favored, running on the mantel of his legislative power in a state where Hispanics now outnumber whites as well as blacks and Asians. He also had the statewide connections of his famous cousin, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who remains arguably California’s most influential Latino.

But in the 2014 primary, Perez finished a disappointing 481 votes behind fellow Democrat Betty Yee in the race for the second and final spot on the November General Election ballot. That political debacle left Perez and Latino pols across California stunned and looking for excuses.

Understandably, seeking vindication and a comeback, Perez last December was the first candidate to jump into the 34^th district race just 45 minutes after Gov. Jerry Brown nominated Becerra to succeed Kamala Harris -- only to drop out a little more than a week later, citing a recent diagnosis of a serious health problem.

His departure opened the floodgates to today’s slew of candidates -- and to the decades-old question of whether Latino Power is real, or just more spray-painted graffiti vandalizing walls in the barrios.

(Tony Castro, a former political reporter and columnist, is the author of five books, the most recent being “Looking for Hemingway: Spain, The Bullfights and a Final Rite of Passage” (Lyons Press) He is an occasional contributor to CityWatch. Twitter: https://twitter.com/Tony_Castro). Prepped for CityWatch for Linda Abrams.

EDUCATION POLITICS-The NAACP Charter School Task Force held a hearing in Los Angeles on Thursday, February 9. After calling for a national moratorium on charter schools until certain concerns were addressed (see below), the NAACP received blowback from charter school advocates. But Jitu Brown, of the Journey for Justice, defended the moratorium in the Washington Post's education blog, the Answer Sheet, saying, "corporate reform has failed to bring equitable educational opportunities to all children." 

This hearing was one in a series, a listening tour, making its way across the country. The distinguished members of the Task Force, all pre-eminent civil rights leaders in cities from Boston to Sacramento, states from Mississippi to Minnesota, gathered testimony from people with direct experience with the issues the moratorium seeks to provide the breathing room to address. 

There was massive organized presence by charter advocates. One charter supporter stacked the speaker sign-up sheet with people who would speak against the moratorium, by copying a typed-up charter school roster she had brought. 

The unions showed up, too. UTLA brought a contingent from Dorsey High School and CSEA came. The Santa Ana Teachers Association’s charter school task force came. Former Education Chair of the California Assembly, Jackie Goldberg, gave public comment. 

I was part of a group of the California Badass Teachers Association (BATs), a grassroots group of about 2000 teachers and education activists. I testified as a recovering charter school parent, but what I heard was more important than anything I said. 

I go anywhere if people are willing to talk about what charter schools are doing to public education due to their lack of oversight. Few official bodies in California, and perhaps none in Los Angeles, will openly discuss the need for charter school oversight for fear of the powerful California Charter Schools Association lobby. (Gubernatorial candidate and California State Treasurer John Chiang is a rare exception).

So the NAACP, the oldest civil rights organization in our country, provided us with a rare opportunity. I was grateful for my two minutes at the mic. When the charter advocates in the back of the room shouted me down, Alice Huffman, the chair, promptly regained order. 

I’m sure for some in the audience it wasn’t my anti-charter message that got them riled up. Some were rightly suspicious of a white Westsider telling them anything about educating urban, black youth. Heck, my own school board member’s chief-of-staff told me not to go to school board meetings, and to find a Latina instead, because it made things awkward for him in our primarily Latino district. 

But I didn’t come to tell them anything about educating black youth. I came to share how charter schools are being used in my neighborhood to segregate our schools. 

The west side of Los Angeles had, for a while, more charter schools than anywhere else on the planet (that distinction now belongs to South LA.) In my neighborhood, charter schools marketed themselves to white, middle class families as a way to send their kids to school without “those kids.” Of course, they phrased it differently. At the charter elementary school my kids attended, we considered our mostly white, middle class school community to be “like minded."

That’s where better oversight might have turned good intentions into fairer access for all children, not just mine. That is what I wanted to tell the NAACP task force. 

After my children transferred to the district middle school across the street, we drove past the charter school every day. One day, my then 11-year old daughter looked out at the charter students during our drive to school and said, “Why was my elementary school almost all white and my middle school is almost all black and brown?” 

Remember, these two schools were separated only by a little street. The middle school was half Latino and half African American. There, my children’s race was indicated as “statistically insignificant” on demographic reports one year. It was a neighborhood school and a magnet school, part of LAUSD's voluntary integration program, for black and Latino children living in parts of the city beleaguered by poverty, violence, and other harms of racial isolation. 

Yet LAUSD has approved nearly every charter school that has been proposed to compete with that school, and offered little extra support to our neighborhood schools. There's no question that charters deserve credit for pushing district schools to step up, but the charter brand also benefits from a grass-is-greener mentality among parents. More choices mean fewer students in each school. That, in turn, means less funding in district schools which results in fewer elective classes and less support. 

I am grateful to the NAACP for the opportunity to share my experience.  

However, far more important than my comments were those made by the Task Force members themselves. (I’m counting on the formal presenters like LAUSD board member George McKenna, California NAACP education chair Julian Vasquez Heilig, Green Dot's Cristina de Jesus, and UTLA's Cecily Myart Cruz, to post their presentations on their own widely read blogs and other forums.) 

The room was mostly cleared out by the time the committee members made their closing remarks. Unsurprisingly, they revealed deeply thought out views by pre-eminent civil rights leaders who are immersed in the issues of equity for black youth in regions across the country. Their thorough understanding of the charter school issue shone in stark contrast to some op-eds that have portrayed the NAACP as out of touch with its members. 

Here is a transcript of their closing remarks: 

Michael Curry is a civil rights leader in Boston, an attorney and President of the nation’s oldest NAACP chapter. He has been involved in redistricting, pushed for Police body cameras and helped to press for a federal inquiry into racial incidents at an elite Boston school. 

“…about their history and about Du Bois and Booker T and Marcus Garvey. Excellent school. So I think the conversation is somewhat twisted. Because people believe that they’re here to tell us not to oppose charter schools, and that’s a false premise. This was never about opposing charter schools. I think we need to lift that up again. That this was a conversation about a traditional public education system that we fight all the time. Another false perception. We fight unions at times about policies. We fight school systems. We just sued--not sued--we brought a civil rights complaint against the Boston Public Schools just a few months ago, and had a civil rights finding against the Boston Public Schools. So it’s not like we don’t fight on the other side too. This is about, now you have a new evolving system.

“And I love to hear the great stories, but what I need to hear from the charter advocates for expansion is that you have problems, too, and how you’re going to work together to solve the problems within this new system. It’s disingenuous if you come and tell a great story about what’s happening in your school, but right down the street, is another charter school that’s expelling kids, suspending kids, not accepting kids, not enrolling kids. 

“And as you have this national conversation about charter schools, let’s keep it real. It’s a problem. It doesn’t mean that your school—that it’s an attack on your personal school but we’ve got to have an honest conversation about what’s going on across the country. My last point on that is I’m always concerned about any new, evolving solution that’s finding us by people who don’t look like us and people who quite frankly wasn’t on the front lines of solving public education since the problem before. So it makes me question why they’re putting this money where they wouldn’t put this money when we were fighting traditional public school. 

“We were asking for higher funding, and trying to pass legislation and bring lawsuits. They weren’t there. But now, all the sudden, they’re putting all this money behind charters. You need to ask that question. I don’t know what the answer is, but I look forward to having that conversation soon.” 

James Gallman is a civil rights leader, the retired President of the NAACP South Carolina which, he said, has “the longest running lawsuit in the country because our state refuses to fund all schools the same way.”

“My comments, on comments that Michael made early, very early on in this process. This is my fourth hearing. And I think that we need to clearly understand what we have called for and then I think we need to understand how the NAACP operates. There was a resolution, or there have been resolutions, coming out of our national meetings. It was not the Board that made that decision. We get a unit that would bring forth a resolution. That resolution is presented to a resolution committee, and it is screened and decided how we move forward. And then it goes to those delegates who come to the convention, and they say that this is what they want to have happen. 

“So just being a member is one thing, but you need to understand how the NAACP operates. It’s not just having a $30 card, it’s how we operate. So when we got to the discussion about it, we made this decision. Let’s call for a moratorium on the expansion of charter schools at least until such time as--and we identified four things that we wanted to see happen. Nobody said “let’s stop these charter schools.” 

“We said we need to clearly—we need to be sure that there are things that are being done that fit all schools. Charter schools are subject to the same transparency and accountability standards as public schools; public funds are not diverted to charter schools at the expense of the public school system; charter schools cease expelling students that public schools have a duty to educate; and cease to perpetuate de facto segregation of the highest performing children from those whose aspirations may be high but whose talents are not yet obvious. 

“So we want to make sure these things are happening at every school. So we didn’t come here tonight to beat up on charter schools or to praise public schools. This young lady here, I can’t remember her name, but she said something about, “we’re on a listening tour.” We are trying to get information from both sides. Then we will, at the end of these hearings, go back and sit down as a group, talk about what we’ve heard, present that to the board and then let the board make a decision. 

“We didn’t come here angry with you. We came here to share with—to hear from you—about what is it that’s being done in your community. What’s going on in this country? And then we can make an intelligent decision as to what’s the best way to move forward with ALL children being given a quality education.”

(Audience: Is the moratorium for a specific amount of time?) No.

Da’quan Love is a civil rights leader, a charter school administrator, and community organizer. As president of the Virginia NAACP Youth and College Division, he led an effort that defeated attempts to invalidate over 16,000 voter registration applications in Virginia during the 2012 U.S. Presidential election. 

“I saw a lot of students, a lot of scholars here today. Are there any scholars still here? Probably left. But nevertheless, as someone who has worked since July in a charter school—a little history on myself. I have worked elementary all the way up to the higher ed level in North Carolina, Virginia, and now Minnesota. As someone who’s worked since July to build a first-year charter school, I was a fifth grade teacher, I was recently promoted to Dean of Institutional Advancement, I understand how difficult it is to get a charter school up and running. So before I move any further, I heard a lot of folks say that ‘I started this school,’ or ‘I started a network of schools.’ And I just want to applaud your efforts because you saw a need and you are trying and you are fulfilling that need in your community. 

“I want to first say that. We should give them a round of applause. It’s no easy feat to do that. Secondly, as it has been stated previously, we are not against charter schools. We want top quality, fair, equitable education for all our kids. Now, if that’s at a charter school, that’s fine. If that’s in a public school, that’s fine.  We just want transparency, as Board member Gallman stated. And we want those four things to be outlined. 

“As I prepare to leave this hearing, one of the things that I am taking away is, quite frankly, many of us have the same objectives. We all want our scholars to be on a pathway to college, and/or career, and ultimately to be successful. We all want to ensure that our teachers have access and are able to feel, as I forgot who said it from, I believe the Green Dot schools, making sure they feel like they’re being empowered, they’re appreciated and they’re ultimately being successful. We’re really all pretty much on the same page. It’s just the manner in which we are approaching reaching these goals. 

“And so I think that there are some things that we can do, and there are some things that we as a task force can take away from this and listen to the ideas and suggestions that you all present. But, moreover, the folks that are in this room and many of the folks who have testified today are the good folks. The bigger folks aren’t here. The folks who we’ve been talking about all afternoon aren’t here. Those are the school management organizations, those charter management organizations -- those big folks are who we really need to be having those conversations with. Those tough schools, those tough charter schools that have not really made adequate performance progress. Those are the schools we need to be really concerned about. And the same for our public schools. So thank you. I appreciate you all for coming and I applaud your efforts. I think that we as a task force have some helpful information to move forward with.” 

Derrick Johnson is a civil rights leaders, an attorney, founder of One Voice, a social justice nonprofit, and President of the NAACP Mississippi. He lectures annually at Harvard University and throughout the country on Voting Rights Act, civil rights, civic engagement, and redistricting. 

“I want to thank Da’quan Love for speaking up because he is a charter school teacher. He’s now a charter school administrator. We are perhaps the worst public school system in the country: Mississippi. We have the weakest teachers unions in the country: Mississippi. So for me, it is not about charter versus public. We have a system of education in this country that has pitted poor and Latino and black children in the worst position possible. 

“And now what I’m seeing is the distraction of charter versus public because many folks do not want to fully fund education for all children. And every time we come to one of these meetings, we have well intended, good people—be them charter or public—speaking from their positions, not understanding that we are being used as a distraction. And the real question is, why have we not transformed education to ensure that all children are provided with a quality education? 

“Now, in that process, it’s disheartening to see the multi-billionaire class utilize tax dollars to extract, to increase their wealth, on the back of our communities and then give talking points to folks in our communities to say this is where we want the NAACP, when in fact, they never show up here. Ms. Jesus had one of the best comments today: bad schools is our common enemy. And let’s be real. We have some really bad public schools and we have some really bad charter schools. And our children are being exploited and used as pawns. 

“Our role, as the NAACP, is to do all we can to be the stopgap. And that’s [inaudible]. So I fight public education all day long in Mississippi. But I see the problem. When you privatize tax dollars, people are exploited. And if we don’t have transparency and standards and accountability, we will find ourselves just like Detroit, all the charter schools you can find. And I grew up in Detroit and education is worse now because it's like the Wild, Wild West. So we’re not, anyone in this room, enemies. I think we all want the same thing. But let’s not be fooled about what’s really going on. This is about who gets taxed, who’s not taxed, and how those tax dollars are being utilized to increase other people’s profits.”

Alice Huffman is a civil rights leader and has been a political powerhouse in California for decades, as a political consultant. She earned her degree from UC Berkeley, Cum Laude, in two years. She is President of the California/Hawaii NAACP. 

“I want to thank the board members. I do want to make a comment. I came from public schools. And we sat in here and bashed the public schools like they’re all bad. They’re not all bad. They educated most of us in this room, that we’re now educated to run charter schools. And for my [charter] friends in the back, what I wanted to tell you, you need to stop bashing your NAACP. Like you don’t want us to bash charter schools, don’t bash your NAACP for doing its job. Thank you for being here.” 

Next stop on the listening tour: New Orleans.

(Karen Wolfe is a public school parent, the Executive Director of PS Connect and an occasional contributor to CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EASTSIDER-A crowd of somewhere between four and six hundred people showed up at the first Council District 1 debate, held at the Sotomayor Learning Academies. My best guess is there were about 450. That’s a lot of people. And on a Thursday evening. Wow! 

Hats off to the group who put this event together: The Glassell Park Improvement Association, with co-sponsorship from the Glassell Park Neighborhood Council, Mt. Washington Homeowners Alliance, Arroyo Arts Collective, Uptown Gay and Lesbian Alliance, LAUSD, Historic Cultural Neighborhood Council, Arroyo Seco Neighborhood Council, Echo Park Neighborhood Council and the North East Youth Council. Oversight was provided by the League of Women Voters, and the moderator was Univision’s own Gabriela Teissier. 

This was a great example of what can happen when a community gets together at the grassroots level to do actually do something. There were a lot more people attending this event than the debate between Jose Huizar and Gloria Molina a few years ago. And the 2015 Huizar/Molina debate was co-sponsored by Cal State LA, the Pat Brown Institute, the League of Women Voters, and Eyewitness News Channel 7 -- so let’s hear it for our community. 

The Candidates 

Who are these four candidates? Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that the incumbent is Gil Cedillo. You may even remember his epic knock-down-drag-out battle with Ed Reyes’ Chief Deputy, Jose Gardea, over replacing the termed out Reyes. A couple of million bucks and a runoff later, Gil won. 

Readers of this column know Joe Bray-Ali from my recent article in CityWatch, “Get Ready for a Fight In CD1: Joe Bray-Ali Cleans Up Nice!” 

Joe has moved far beyond his original, contentious bicycle lane revolution and is garnering support from environmental groups, small business owners (he owns his own bike shop), and various constituencies feeling left out by the incumbent. 

Jesse Rosas has been running for office in Northeast LA for a while. In fact, during the last election, he got 7% of the vote and caused the runoff between Gil Cedillo and Jose Gardea. Originally from Mexico City, he’s been very active in Highland Park politics for years. A product of our school system (LAUSD at Belmont High, and then LACC), Jesse is a businessman and is running as such, to get the community the attention we deserve. You can find out more here.  

Giovany Hernandez is by far the youngest candidate for office, and shows the hallmarks of an up and comer. Born and raised in the Pico Union slice of CD1, he graduated from UC Santa Cruz and has worked for SEIU, both as an organizer and signing up community members for Obamacare. 

Currently he’s a parent organizer for the CCSA (California Charter Schools Association). You can find more about him here.

The Debate Questions 

This was a very obstreperous crowd, often loud and rooting for their candidate. Given these circumstances, the League and moderator Gabriela Tessier (Univision) did a great job in maintaining order and making sure that each candidate got equal time for the questions. 

I won’t get into too much detail on the responses -- this column would be way too long. Suffice it to say there were 13 questions in all, bookmarked by opening and closing statements, which is a lot of questions. It was nice that these questions came from the community, and here’s my best recollection of what they were. (After all, I can only take notes so fast.) 

-How long have you lived in CD1? 

-Given the number of homeless, how do you propose to help them in CD1? 

-What’s your position on Measure S (the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative)? 

-What’s your position on Rent Control for residents of CD1? 

-How do you feel about Open Space and Development in CD1? 

-How about small businesses, Community Plans and Neighborhood Councils in CD1? 

-What’s your position on local arts, theater groups, and preservation in CD1? 

-How about keeping CD1 clean? 

-What’s your position on green energy, solar, and the DWP? 

-How do you feel about crime and public safety in CD1? 

-What issues are important for the LAUSD, even though the Council isn’t directly involved? 

-What about transit issues in the District? 

-How about the Figueroa St. corridor and bike lanes? 

Sifting Through the Answers 

It was evident that each of the candidates brought their supporters to the event. Of interest to me were the number of students attending. I assume this was because of Giovany and more particularly, our representative on the LAUSD Board (District 5), Ref Rodriguez. He was kind enough to provide the auditorium at Sotomayor Learning Academies for the event. Political junkies will remember that Ref, backed by the CCSA Charter folks, unseated incumbent Bennett Kayser in the last LAUSD Board election. 

Anyhow, themes emerged as the candidates answered each of the questions. Gil Cedillo was clearly the professional politician at the height of his powers; he had done his homework in giving detailed specifics for each question based on his record in office. He repeatedly made a valid point that it’s easy to say what you will do when running for office, but it’s a different matter to actually legislate in the City Hall environment. He did not go into the 15-0 voting system of the Council. 

In the overall area of Planning, I was very surprised that the only candidate openly supporting Measure S was Jesse Rosas. For me, that was a large disappointment. As many CityWatch articles have detailed, I believe that absent the passage of Measure S, the candidates are all just “blowin’ smoke” when it comes to effecting any change in the City’s development process. I can only assume that the multi-million dollar “No on S” campaign waged by the developers and their cronies is having an impact on voters. 

Joe Bray-Ali shined when it came to small business, bikes, open space, and the environment and he has the endorsements to back it up. I have no doubt that he’s the real deal and is much more community-based than the incumbent. And while his bike lane buddies were wildly enthusiastic, they were much better behaved than during the bike wars. 

To me, the biggest surprise of the evening was Giovany Hernandez. He was bright, energetic, well spoken, and clearly lives, works and plays in CD1. Not to mention that Pico Union has not had anyone from the community be successful in politics that I can remember. He was hell on wheels when it came to rent control, and was the only candidate to deal up front with gentrification. The youth crowd (students & Charter) were clearly in his camp, and he should have a promising future. 

Jesse Rosas was motivated when it came to crime and public safety, and he was less politically correct and more direct than the other candidates about a police/business/town hall approach to involving the community in policing. Since he is intimately involved in the Figueroa St. corridor and the tragic deaths which have occurred there, this was not surprising. The other candidates were more nuanced, but in fairness, this issue is extremely complicated and way beyond the scope of a 13 question candidate forum. 

The Takeaway 

Let’s be honest. The odds are in favor of Gil Cedillo being re-elected. He’s endorsed by the entire LA City establishment, from Mayor Garcetti to the Parke Skelton (now rebranded as SG&A Consultants) stable of insiders, with all their money and clout. Heck, I even received a Local 1014 Firefighters Union endorsement sticker for Gil, although I don’t know how many firefighters actually live in CD1. 

Most important, this election gives the winner 5 1/2 years in office. That’s right, a one-time only deal. I will never underestimate an incumbent with that level of security on the line. 

I must also note that over the years Gil has taken a lot of heat for his very real concerns for our immigrant communities, helping out Dreamers and legislating driver’s licenses for the undocumented, when neither of these stands were popular. I know for a fact that his passion for these issues is genuine and I respect him for that. And he’s been knowledgeably pro-union in an environment where saying that get’s folks like my friend Jack Humphreville all revved up about bankrupting the City. 

At the same time, on the PLUM Committee he has never met a developer that he doesn’t love, just like the rest of City Hall and the Mayor. 

It also seemed pretty clear from the crowd’s reaction that there is a significant chunk of the electorate who are not in love with Mr. Cedillo. 

If I were betting, of all the other candidates, Joe Bray-Ali stands the best chance of getting in to a runoff. He has an innovative Facebook & social media campaign going, which allows him to leverage limited resources in a manner that reminds me of Bernie’s Presidential campaign, and I suspect that the same generational change may be happening here. Surprisingly, he also has the endorsement of the LA Times. 

Giovany Hernandez is a wild card. He did very well with the crowd and his answers were specific to the questions and on point. While his public campaign seems limited, I will never underestimate what the CCSA can do by pouring large sums of money into an election. Just ask Bennett Kayser. 

My best guess is that Jesse Rosas will get about the same percentage as last time. He’s a decent person, but absent any real donor base and/or ground game, this is simply too competitive a race for him to stay in the hunt. 

All in all the real winner in this debate were the members of our community, and everyone and every organization who participated deserves a great big “well done!” I have never seen all our various community groups work together like this. Such a huge crowd size on a school night was awesome. 

So do your bit -- VOTE! Who knows, we could see that rarity in LA politics…a runoff.

(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.

BROKEN PROMISES-Brentwood residents received an email recently from our Councilmember Mike Bonin touting the approval of the Brentwood School expansion plan. The school is located at the gridlocked intersection of Sunset Blvd. and Barrington Place, just west of the 405 freeway. 

According to the announcement, Brentwood School would meet a new “Sunset Standard” by reducing its peak hour traffic by 40% after a whopping 38% enrollment increase from 695 to 960 students. 

A 40% reduction in school-related traffic would be a welcome relief for the Westside residents and commuters who contend with gridlock on a daily basis. School traffic from parent pick-ups and drop-offs is a big contributor to the problem. 

The community had reason to expect that Brentwood School would have to bring its traffic mitigation program in line with that of the Archer School for Girls just a few blocks away. The City has held Archer to strict standards for its nearly 20 years of existence, including 76% mandatory busing and limits on the number and size of events that can occur during peak traffic hours. 

And in November, the City Planning Commission approved conditions requiring Brentwood School to reduce its traffic by 40% in return for allowing the enrollment increase. 

So what happened? After the City Planning Commission’s ruling, the Council Office and Brentwood School negotiated a new agreement that gutted the CPC’s conditions. 

And then the revised conditions were slammed through PLUM and the City Council without any discussion, without hearing public comment, and not even mentioning that the conditions were different from those recommended by City Planning. 

Although the community, represented by the Brentwood Community Council, had been a part of the negotiations up through the CPC hearing, they were cut out of the discussion while adjustments were made. 

No longer was the school held to a 40% reduction in traffic: 

• New language introduced loopholes enabling the school to reduce its traffic by only 12.5%. 
• “Credits” were added to allow Brentwood School to put public school students on buses while its own parents continue to drive kids to school. The public school buses don’t even have to eliminate traffic on Sunset to reduce the school’s own requirements.
• Daily traffic caps are gone, replaced by average targets which enable the school to frequently exceed its limits. 

Opportunities to make a real difference in traffic don’t come along often, particularly on the Sunset corridor. And it isn’t often that the community and City Planning are in alignment on appropriate mitigations. 

Therefore, it is particularly disappointing that yet another backroom deal between a Council Office and a well-heeled applicant goes against the community’s interest.

(Lauren Cole grew up in Los Angeles and has been living in the Brentwood and West LA areas for over 25 years. She is the Transportation Representative to the Brentwood Community Council and on the Board of the South Brentwood Residents Association. When she is not working on neighborhood issues she runs a strategy consulting firm focusing on media businesses, Cole Media. (www.colemediala.com. [[hotlink]] The views expressed in this article are those of Ms. Cole and Ms Cole alone). Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ELECTION WATCH-When it comes to politics, we all tend to talk about the issues on the broader scope, right? Things like U.S. Immigration, U.S. Labor, and the President and his Administration. 

But, even though we all want to make the world a better place, the question is, “What can we do in order to change the things we don’t like?” Let’s be honest: There is nothing we can do besides go and demonstrate, write letters, and so on, but in the end, it barely makes a dent in something we have no control over. 

But, what if we can actually make a difference when it comes to politics right here in our own backyards? No, not the ones with the birds and the trees -- I am talking about the politics within our reach: The Local Ones! 

Just in case you missed it because you are too pooped from last year’s Election experience, there are City elections heading our way, and yes, they are on March, 7, 2017. 

Voters across Los Angeles have option of sticking with the same old business or…they can vote the incumbents out of office. 

I guess by now you are wondering who you would replace them with, right? 

Well, there are a number of candidates running against the City Insider’s Wheel of Fortune. 

The City Ethics Commission’s website has them all listed. From Mayor, City Controller and City Attorney, to all the hopefuls for the uneven numbered City Council Districts. However, instead of taking on the entire world of election-hopefuls and the incumbents, I will stick with those who are near to my heart. 

Even though I am now a Westside resident, I am still very much interested in the well-being of my former area of residency: Council District 13. 

I used to live in Hollywood, which is part of CD 13, and which is currently represented by Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell. 

Mr. O’Farrell has been around since the good old days when he worked under then Council President Eric Garcetti. 

O’Farrell claims that he has brought nothing but good things to the neighborhoods he represents, but from articles and conversations, as well as listening to City Council meetings, I learned that there are a lot of people who will disagree with that. 

One of these people is Douglas “Doug” Haines, a longtime resident of Hollywood and a first-time candidate for Council District 13. 

Doug Haines has earned his recognition in City Hall by speaking up against big developments that threaten the character of a neighborhood, and these neighborhoods don’t necessarily have to be around the corner from him. 

Haines has fought and won in and out of court as a member of the La Mirada Neighborhood Association, and he has voiced his concerns multiple times during meetings of the LA Planning Commission, LA Planning and Land Use Committee (PLUM), as well as before City Council. 

Perhaps that is why he is so very familiar with the way the Big Money Machine works, yet he is not one of those who greases the wheel when it starts squeaking. Instead, Haines goes and starts speaking and, as the last resort, is heard by judges in the California courts. 

He’s been speaking to and with anyone who wants to listen, and he has proven that a lot of talk can actually make a difference. 

His experience with politics started when he got himself involved with saving the Cinerama Dome on Sunset Blvd, a treasured iconic structure that wouldn’t be standing there today if it wasn’t for Doug Haines and his interest in preserving history in Los Angeles. 

Haines also took part in the early stages of forming the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council, and still serves on its board as well as on the board of the Hollywood Studio District Neighborhood Council. 

Living in a community that has been deprived of new park land for decades, Mr. Haines made it another goal of his to bring a new park to the neighborhood. It might not be the biggest park created within the last 50 years, but it sure is a great start for the community surrounding it. 

Mr. Haines knows that he cannot resolve homelessness and problems with gangs and crime all by himself, but he started working on these issues with the LAPD in the Hollywood area. 

Candidate Haines has walked his immediate neighborhood almost every day, cleaning up the streets, speaking with neighbors, reaching out to shopkeepers and helping those who feel that they have no voice in the city. 

Still, what does a successful film editor, who spent most of his time in closed dark rooms working on major movies have to offer when it comes to working with people? My answer is: Everything! 

He is smart, he knows building codes and regulations, he is charismatic and engaging, he listens to people, brings concerns to the front and fights City Hall from the outside in. 

Candidate Haines said that he is not accepting money from developers during his campaign, and he will not accept it at any stage when in office. 

Mr. Haines is ready to spend the next 12 years, give or take, with his constituents, working on identifying the right development for the neighborhoods by keeping an eye on City Codes and Regulations. This time however, he will be doing this from the inside out. 

And let’s not forget that he is a big supporter of Measure S, the initiative that is promising to put a moratorium on overdevelopment throughout the City of Los Angeles. 

If you would like to find out more about this candidate, please check out the web page supporters of Doug Haines have created at https://www.votedoughaines.com/.  

Many candidates stepped up to the plate to run against the incumbents of today’s City Hall, but now it is up to you, dear voters, to decide who will be voted in, who will be voted out and who will remain in office. 

Do yourselves a HUGE favor. Take a look at the candidates on the March 7, 2017 ballot and decide for yourself who is worthy of your vote.

(Ziggy Kruse is an activist and reporter for www.HNN-TV.com, where this article was first published. She is also a former Board Member of the Hollywood Studio District Neighborhood Council. Ziggy can be reached at [email protected]. Ms. Kruse views are her own and do not reflect opinions of either the staff or management of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-Here’s an election curiosity: Why did the big real estate companies dedicated to keeping pay-to-play for Los Angeles City Council spot-zoning in motion, hire Parke Skelton’s and Michael Shiplock’s Pasadena-based SG&A campaign firm? Since that firm’s clients are Democrats, on the surface it looks like an odd fit. On one side you have a high profile campaign firm, SG&A, who knows how to sway voters who care about social justice issues, like progressive Bernie supporters, and whose clients are Democrats. 

But, on the other side there is their current client, the 10 large real estate firms opposing measure S and whose business operations have nothing to do with social justice issues. These companies are totally focused on making as much money as possible through highly profitable real estate investments (e.g., mega-projects), some of them speculative. In the past, their businesses used to build tract housing and strip malls, but, responding to new real estate realities, their in-fill projects now range from high-rise luxury mega-projects, like 8150 Sunset, to McMansions and Small Lot Subdivisions. 

My explanation, largely derived from well-known studies by NYU’s and UC Santa Barbara’s Harvey Molotch is that municipal level Democratic Party officials, like Mayors Villaraigosa and Garcetti, are a lynch pin of big city urban growth machines. Once you understand this, it makes perfect sense that the big real estate firms opposed to Measure S would hire SG&A. They need someone who can convincingly dress up greed, corruption, and sweet heart deals in liberal-appearing garments, and they found it. 

SG&A is a campaign firm that can square this circle. They can take vast sums from real estate firms showering City Hall officials with campaign contributions and still mobilize the liberal Democratic base through a laundry list of disingenuous claims. They have mastered the art of appealing to low information liberal voters, especially those who follow the lead of well-meaning non-profits unwittingly on the same wave length of Big Real Estate. What SG&A apparently figured out through their focus groups is that these two groups share a faith in market magic, and their “No on S” campaign has exploited this to the hilt with these themes: 

• In the name of affordable housing, we should green light all types of housing, even illegal residential projects for the very rich that the LA City Council approves through spot-zoning.

• In the name of environmental sustainability, we should green light luxury housing complexes proposed for low density areas because they sometimes happen to be near transit corridors and subway stations.

• In the name of job creation, we should green light mega-projects built by companies who claim they are job producers, yet could care less about unions or their own employees. 

My term for this campaign strategy is crying buckets of crocodile tears. At other times I have called it a liberal head fake. Either way it means that SG&A has mounted its campaign against Measure S by alleging, in so many words, that LA’s spot-zoning, pay-to-pay status quo is progressive, while recurring efforts to reign in uncontrolled real estate speculation in LA through law suits and voter initiatives represent a conservative, right-wing, “NIMBY” agenda. 

In this upside down world, regulation of land use through planning and zoning is a scheme hatched by an entrenched old guard, while scuttling planning and zoning is the truly progressive approach. The beneficiaries of this deregulation, Democratic Party officials at City Hall and real estate speculators, of course, disappear completely through this slight-of-hand deception. 

To get a better understanding of how the No on S campaign fills their buckets with crocodile tears, let’s critically examine five of the major faux “liberal” claims against Measure S. They are all couched in progressive-sounding themes that camouflage the Wild West land use model that the Big Real Estate firms and their well-compensated City Hall abettors so appreciate. 

Crocodile Tears Claim 1: Measure S will stop development in Los Angeles. 

The term “development” has a nice progressive ring to it, but this allegation is flat-out wrong. Even though the No on S campaign only addresses the concerns of its paymasters, getting approvals for private real estate projects, Measure S would not impact any public works projects, such as the Purple Line Subway Extension. As for private real estate projects, it only affects a small percentage, mostly luxury buildings. Each year, LA’s Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) processes about 100,000 permits. Of these, about 600 projects depend on the City Council legislative actions targeted by Measure S. These are almost entirely luxury projects, and with few or none affordable units. 

This is why City Planning’s recent Citywide Metrics Report notes that only two percent of new housing units in Los Angeles are affordable, and they result from density bonuses in which they City Council plays legislative no role. They are in-house quasi-ministerial cases, and they do not require the spot-General Plan amendments and spot-zone changes blocked by Measure S. 

Crocodile Tears Claim 2: Measure S is a housing ban. 

Many of LADBS’s 100,000 annual permits involve housing, and they will continue to process these by-right projects. Their plan checkers and field inspectors will be as busy as ever. This work also includes residential projects with affordable rental units built on commercial lots, where LA’s zoning laws allow by-right construction. Furthermore, about 80 percent of the 3000 annual building permit cases that City Planning reviews do not involve any City Council legislative actions. These cases, too, are exempt from Measure S, as are 100 percent affordable housing projects. 

Crocodile Tears Claim 3: Measure S stops the construction of affordable housing. 

As discussed above, this allegation, too, is totally wrong. Only two percent of new housing in Los Angeles is affordable, and according to the Department of City Planning’s Citywide Metric’s report, this two percent is built through density bonuses, not the parcel-specific City Council land use ordinances that Measure S blocks. 

For that matter, Measure S is fully consistent with the construction of Measure HHH affordable housing on all City of LA-owned lots that are already zoned for residential and commercial uses. In the words of City Controller Ron Galperin, “The City of Los Angeles—on behalf of its residents and taxpayers—owns a vast portfolio of real estate, encompassing nearly 9,000 distinct parcels within the County of Los Angeles alone. These include parks; libraries; municipal facilities; parking lots, and commercial, industrial, retail, office and residential buildings and vacant land.” 

Crocodile Tears Claim 4: Measure S is a job killer. 

This claim is based on a Beacon Economics study paid for the big real estate companies funding SG&A’s No on S campaign. But, it is built on a faulty assumption: if real estate firms can no longer obtain pay-to-play spot-zones for their unplanned projects in Los Angeles, they will bolt to other cities. 

There is no evidence for this claim. Nearby well-planned cities that do not engage in these unethical political practices, such as Santa Monica and Pasadena, generate many construction jobs without handing out zone changes and General Plan amendments to real estate developers LA-style. 

Crocodile Tears Claim 5: Measure S promotes urban sprawl and undercuts sustainability. 

This claim harkens back to old land use disputes in Los Angeles, as well as a critique of zoning in some urban planning circles that planning and zoning are tools of the rich. In LA, however, reality is just the opposite. It is the big real estate firms, and those connected to them who have become anti-zoning and anti-planning, not LA’s residents. Furthermore, if these anti-zoning groups bothered to look at the adopted plans they disparage, they would discover that they are all anti-sprawl. Measure S calls for these official documents to be updated and then meticulously followed, not ignored or overturned on behalf of big developers with big pockets who prefer an un-planned Los Angeles. 

Furthermore, sustainability policies and programs are woven through the new Mobility Element, as well as the older elements, such as the General Plan Framework, Land Use, Air Quality, Open Space, and Conservation. Anyone who claims that a voter initiative to strengthen LA’s General Plan and City Charter is really a stalking horse for sprawl has clearly never studied the planning documents they so glibly malign and are ready to dispose of.

(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.

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW-If there’s an upside to the turmoil caused by the Trump Administration, it’s this: grassroots activists have been coming out of the woodwork. Newly minted and lifelong activists linked arms at the Women’s March and in Huddle Up events throughout the U.S. 

Now, Huckleberry Bakery and Café’s Zoe Nathan and other talented artisan bakers and pastry chefs throughout Los Angeles, including Friends & Family’s Roxana Jullapat, Proof Bakery’s Na Young Ma, The Rose Café’s Neidy Venegas & Joshua Graves, have joined forces for a new grassroots campaign called Bake & Gather, neighborhood bake sale events to encourage dialogue and raise money for important causes about which the community feels passionate. Nathan hopes to expand the movement to other U.S. cities. 

The first SoCal “neighborhood gathering and bake sale” will be held Saturday, February 25 at Santa Monica’s Rustic Canyon Park, 601 Latimer Road. From 9 a.m. to noon, participants will be able to purchase pastries and coffee from Huckleberry Bakery & Café, Caffe Luxxe, and Rusticoffee to benefit the American Civil Liberties Union and Public Counsel, which supports immigrants and underserved communities with pro bono legal services. Downtown LA’s Woo Souvenir Shop has created Bake & Gather t-shirts to sell at the event and at Huckleberry for $40, with 100 percent of the proceeds from the first 100 sold going to the organizations. Any additional profits on top will be donated to the ACLU and Public Counsel. 

Rustic Canyon Family of Restaurants co-owner Nathan says, “The great uniter of all people is food and social rights. Right now, a good majority of people are feeling helpless and scared. I believe if we can get together with our neighbors over great food and coffee, we can slowly start to connect with each other, feel less nervous, and find our voices and footing again,” says Zoe. “This is not about Democrats versus Republicans, but finding the things that unite us during these unprecedented times, while raising money for some important causes in the process.” 

Nathan hopes Bake & Gather will inspire others across Los Angeles and the U.S. to create their own local gatherings to benefit worthy organizations, especially ones that have been recently defunded or are needed to defend basic human rights. 

“You can do anything and gather. This is not just for professional or even amateur bakers,” adds Nathan. “Kids can plan an event at their school or library, artists could sell their paintings and drawings from a friend’s driveway, or surfers could teach lessons at their local beach. The purpose is to get out, talk to your neighbors, and put your energy behind something constructive.” 

The Rustic Canyon event will be the first of many Bake & Gathers in LA.

•  Saturday, March 11 from 12-3 p.m. at the Silver Lake Reservoir’s Meadow (1850 W. Silverlake Drive), hosted by Roxana Jullapat (behind the forthcoming Friends & Family,) Proof Bakery’s Na Young Ma, and Alimento’s Harriet Ha. 

• Saturday, March 25 (time and location TBD) with The Rose Café’s Neidy Venegas and Joshua Graves and Broken Spanish’s Ivan Marquez. 

• April – Cake Monkey’s Elizabeth Belkind and food stylist Staci Valentine will host earlier in the month, followed by Bear Claw Kitchen’s Sarah Lange. 

• May – Platine Bakery’s Jamie Ginsburg and The Gourmandise School’s Clémence Gossett will host a gathering, with more to come. 

• Coming This Summer – Hatchet Hall’s Paige Russell, Sqirl’s Sasha Piligian, Lodge Bread’s Jacqui De Borga, Bub & Grandma’s Andy Kadin, and more. 

If you’re interested in starting your own Bake & Gather, a website will soon feature a planning checklist, collateral for posters and promotional materials, and a list of recommended charitable organizations. Join the movement and learn more about upcoming Los Angeles events (and across the country) by following Bake & Gather on Instagram and tagging #bettertogether.

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

 VOICES-In 2007 when I met Mitchell Schwartz, he was the President of the Los Angeles League of Conservation voters and the Chair of the Barack Obama campaign for the State of California. I was impressed at that time by how he treated individuals, and how enthusiastic he was about the Obama campaign. 

I was a proponent of the “No on Measure B campaign”, what I thought was not a well thought out solar energy initiative. Mitchell took on the “No on Measure B” campaign, and he lost. But he was so gracious – he met with me and others. We discussed why the Neighborhood Councils were opposed to “Measure B.” 

Mitchel Schwartz has worked in the State Department during the Clinton Administration. He has traveled for the State Department, which indicates to me that he has the knowledge to be able to negotiate on behalf of our government. 

Mitchell has taken a five point pledge regarding fundraising. This has included opting to take matching funds, and not to take any PAC money or money from developers. And he has pledged to serve the full five and one-half year term, and not to run for higher office, a pledge that Mayor Garcetti has not made. 

It is very unclear to me why the Los Angeles Times has endorsed Eric Garcetti when they state in their OPINION section that our Mayor was graded a C by them two years ago. The Times also calls Eric Garcetti out regarding the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative – also known as the “Yes on Measure S campaign.” 

The Times says that Mayor Garcetti, who is against the initiative, “…was too slow to respond when slow-growth advocates proposed the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative.” While I believe that Mayor Garcetti has stated that he wants to fund the City Planning Department to update the Community Plans over a ten-year period, a position paper by Mitchell Schwartz calls for updating the General and Community Plans in four years. 

In Mitchell Schwartz’s plans that are posted on his website, he states: 

“Housing is the most pressing issue facing Los Angeles. Los Angeles suffers from an acute shortage of housing, from houses for the middle income families to three and four bedroom apartments for working class families to studios for young people to single resident occupancy units for very low-income individuals.” 

Mitchell calls for “establishing transparency by removing political money from development decisions.” In his Nine Point Housing Plan, he makes recommendations including “creating a Housing Czar to coordinate efforts across departments” as well as using “the incredible intellectual resources of UCLA, USC, Cal State Northridge, and Cal State LA to develop housing strategies that are reasonable and achievable and make economic sense.” 

The difference that I see between Mitchell Schwartz and Eric Garcetti is that Mitchell is the voice of compassion for the homeless and others who are less fortunate in our City. 

Mitchell Schwartz is the voice of change that will benefit all Angelinos -- not just wealthy Angelinos and non-Angelino investors and developers. His recommendations include:   

• Finding alternative methods of transportation for the elderly to get to the hospital other than calling 911 paramedics. 

• Green infrastructure programs. 

• LADWP reform, including an elected Board of Commissioners to oversee the LADWP. 

• A Citizens Oversight Committee to appoint the Rate Payer Advocate. Mitchell supports an oversight committee that is created by the Neighborhood Councils to pick the Rate Payer’s Advocate and to oversee the Rate Payer Advocate’s Budget. 

• Support for better transparency by the LADWP which he states often drags out routine records requests for months.  

• Transparency in reporting crime statistics. He has stated publicly that Mayor Garcetti may be suppressing last year’s crime statistics. 

• Adding 2,500 officers to the Los Angeles Police Department. 

I support Mitchell Schwartz because he is listening to the people. As a former Neighborhood Councilmember, I used to invite then City Council President Eric Garcetti out to the West Hills Neighborhood Council Board meetings. To the best of my knowledge, he has not been there yet. 

On the other hand, Mitchell Schwartz has shown his interest in listening to the people and meeting the people by visiting Neighborhood Councils and other groups. Last summer, Mitchell met my husband and me in the West San Fernando Valley on two occasions. My husband and I took Mitchell on two “three hour tours” of the West San Fernando Valley; we showed him many points of interest in this area and discussed many of the problems facing the Valley. 

The second tour ended with a visit to the Concerts at the Park in Warner Center where I introduced him to some members of the Woodland Hills Warner Center Neighborhood Council who were manning a booth there. 

Mitchell has recently driven out to the Valley to attend multiple meetings and hearings on the Aliso Canyon Gas wells. I have also pointed out to him on DOGGR maps the locations of the oil and gas wells under the City of Los Angeles – not far from his home. 

If like me, you do not want to give our current Mayor a mandate in our next election – if you want a Choice for Mayor, I recommend that you Vote for Mitchell Schwartz on March 7.

(Chris Rowe is a 39-year resident of West Hills.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

CRIME WATCH--On Monday in Whittier a villainous person murdered a police officer and seriously wounded another who had come to render him aid due to his involvement in a traffic accident. Early that day, he had murdered his cousin, Roy Gogers Torres, in East Los Angeles. 

The killer, Michael Christopher Mejia, who was born and grew up in the United States, had been in prison for a felony robbery in 2010 and grand theft auto in 2014 and he had been released from prison in April 2016 – after serving his full prison term. From the frequency with which the authorities had ‘violated” Mejia for his behavior since his April release, it appears that probation knew he posed a serious danger. On February 2, the Sheriff’s Department gave him a “flash incarceration,” and he was released February 11^th. They gave Mejia the maximum time under Flash Incarceration which is ten days. 

In the subsequent media-fed hysteria people should know that Mejia was not out of prison due to any of the ‘early release’ measures which the public and legislature have passed. This rumor was fueled by a craven media who seized upon the extreme grief of Whittier Chief Piper who lashed out at the so called ‘early release’ laws while fighting off tears over the murder of his good friend, Officer Keith Boyer (photo above). Also, the Sheriff’s department repetition of this falsehood contributed to a public outcry to reverse the early release program. 

Alt-Facts Rule 

In what world is disseminating false information which is designed to inflame the passions of the public a wise idea? We live in a world where Alt-facts rule and now we see denials on line insisting that the first reports were correct and Mejia was early release. Thus, the solution by politicians who also prefer hyper-emotional Alt-facts is to attack the Early Release Program even if the reality is that early release makes our communities safer. 

Psychopaths Do Not Yield to Easy Solutions 

A few days later, in the face of more reliable information … thank you, LA Times … it appears that Mejia is a Psychopath. Other people describe this type of person criminally insane. Or, we may use the idea that he was a very dangerous person. While we need to await more details, the frequency with which Mejia was jailed for probation violations indicates that the authorities were keeping close tabs on him. It bears repeating that they had given him the maximum ten days under Flash Incarceration. 

We lack data to provide a clinical diagnosis, but it is sufficient for our purposes to recognize that law enforcement knew this individual as extremely dangerous. Let’s stress the word individual. Law enforcement has to deal with specific individual human beings and it is our function as a society to provide them with the tools. We do not do that and tragedy results. 

Systemic Problems Lack Quick Fixes 

No institution in our society adequately deals with people who have mental illness. That applies from the Presidency to the jailer who has to supervise violent prisoners in “lock-down.” Our inability is a systemic problem … that means it is found in all parts of society. Professionals now realize that the term “Mental Illness” is both misleading and counterproductive, but it is an advance over the notions that ‘crazy people” are possessed by demons. 

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder [DSM-5] is an attempt to classify behavior patterns which our society finds harmful. Seldom does it shed light on why someone has a certain pattern and the effort to devise a classification system on which people agree is on-going. People cannot decide whether Donald Trump, for example, suffers from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder or a Histrionic Personality Disorder. It is beneficial to look at Trump because one can see how extremely difficult it is to constrain someone who suffers from a mental disorder. 

Donald Trump exists at the tippy top of the social ladder with access to the very best help in the world, while Mejia was on the bottom rung of the ladder. In the final analysis, Donald Trump’s mental disorders are likely to result in far greater death, destruction and bereavement than Mejia’s murderous behavior. 

As a society we need to admit that mental disorders are a systemic aspect of our national life affecting every one of us. There are no quick fixes. Our institutions are unable to handle these very serious problems, but as they say in AA, the first step is admitting that you have a problem. 

And, as a society, we need to agree that the spread of misinformation in an attempt to support a cause, in the end, benefits no one and is harmful to everyone. 

The Times did not seem to contribute to the disinformation but on Wednesday did a rather comprehensive article outlining the errors in the rush to blame the early release programs.

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

-cw

OPEN LETTER TO JESSICA LEVINSON, PRESIDENT OF THE LA CITY ETHICS COMMISSION---I am asking for your immediate attention to a troubling situation that involves the potential misuse of our tax dollars and the violation of good government laws overseen, administered and enforced by the City Ethics Commission.

All three candidates for Los Angeles City Council District 11 agreed in writing months ago to participate in a debate. This participation is one of the conditions the candidates had to meet in order to receive matching funds -  our tax dollars - to help underwrite the costs of their political campaigns. City records show Councilman Mike Bonin has received $100,000 in matching funds and challenger Mark Ryavec nearly $46,000; as of this date Robin Rudisill, the third candidate, has not received such matching funds.

At this late date, however, we have not had a bona fide CD11 candidate debate. Yet the candidates have our tax dollars and are undoubtedly spending them.

Recently CD11 constituents were shortchanged when Bonin did not attend a debate on Feb. 16 at the University Synagogue in Brentwood featuring his two challengers, Ryavec and Rudisill. This had all the earmarks of a bona fide debate, moderated by the highly-regarded KNX 1070 Newsradio anchor Frank Mottek. More than 125 persons attended; nearly 300 registered to attend but it is suspected that when it was determined Bonin would not participate, many disgusted voters said 'what's the point.'

Meantime, it was reported that Bonin was indisposed because he was committed to  an event on Feb. 16, in Mar Vista, sponsored by a group called Aging in Place. The minutes of the Mar Vista group establish that Bonin was not the guest speaker at their event attended by 28 persons; the evidence also indicates Bonin was invited to both the Mar Vista and Synagogue events at about the same time.

Bonin’s campaign staff also claimed their candidate was leery about attending  the Synagogue event because some of its organizers supported his rivals. However, that concern was amply mitigated by the fact that Mottek, a veteran journalist and long-time member of the board of the Los Angeles chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, agreed to moderate the debate and call the balls and strikes, if you will.

Bonin's excuses don't pass the smell test.

Now we are hearing there MAY be a debate on Feb. 27. Despite some mixed messages about who would attend or not, the latest news (as of noon, Feb. 2) is that all three candidates will attend. Sort of. Apparently Ryavec will be a "virtual" participant, showing up via live-stream (???) and providing taped responses (???). Whatever all this means, god only knows, but it is not the same as showing up in person.

However, this information – even if true - does not diminish the value and purpose of this petition.

It remains unacceptable that one debate is being held at the tail-end of the primary election season and the time and place of the debate were dictated by the incumbent officeholder, Mike Bonin. To top it off, this debate at this time apparently will NOT be moderated by anyone who can be expected to be objective and disinterested in the outcome of the election or practiced in holding candidates’ feet to the fire. The gold standard for political debates is to have them moderated by journalists; this is a format that should be institutionalized by the City Ethics Commission.

Other reforms worth considering:

• a requirement that there be at least three debates in the primary; ;
• that these debates be held in different parts of the district at times and places dictated by the commission;
• and that the candidates get a down-payment on their matching funds if they show up at a debate. No more: we give you the money and hope you engage in a debate.

Bottom-line: we help fund the campaigns of candidates running for office  with the promise that we will get debates. What’s happening in CD11 makes it clear that this system is, like so much at City Hall, unsatisfactory.

More specifically, as to the Feb. 27th debate (if it indeed comes off as now contemplated): the date is unacceptable. Many voters will have cast absentee ballots by Feb. 27; in effect the election could be decided by absentee voters who had no opportunity to witness a meaningful debate. It is no service to the public to hold a debate on Feb. 27th  - a mere eight days before the election.

It has also been reported that Bonin has demanded that this Feb. 27th “debate” shall NOT include questions about Measure S (which Bonin opposes). It is arbitrary and intolerable for any Los Angeles city candidate to dictate that their position concerning a notable municipal ballot measure, for example, not be discussed as part of a “debate.”

Bottom-line: Many residents of CD11 are deeply concerned that the candidates are acting in bad faith and willfully dodging their responsibility to engage in a meaningful public debate to help the voters make informed decisions about how to vote.

This is not just a question of reasonableness. It is a matter of law (see Los Angeles Municipal Code §§ 49.7.22 et seq). All three CD11 candidates agreed in writing to participate in at least one debate in order to receive matching funds assistance.

The City Ethics Commission should immediately demand that Bonin and Ryavec return the matching funds tax dollars they have received; and that these funds be kept in an escrow account and be released to Bonin and Ryavec only after they have participated in a bona fide public debate. I daresay that what is happening in CD11 is probably not unique and we believe that the City Ethics Commission should take steps to prevent the citywide abuse of the matching funds program.

It is particularly obnoxious when incumbent officeholders, who already have a tremendous fund-raising advantage over their challengers, are allowed to spend our tax dollars to fatten their political warchests while dodging their debate obligations.

But in the meantime, the city Ethics Commission should act immediately to prevent candidates in CD11 from spending our tax dollars until they make good on their written pledge to debate. Our tax dollars and the integrity of the city’s campaign finance reform laws must be protected. Yes, this may cause discomfort to the candidates but it is time to send a strong signal that this dysfunctional system can no longer be tolerated.

This petition is supported by a dozen or so individuals who first encountered it on Nextdoor Neighborhood. However, I did not get their permission to use their names for publication so I have not included them herein.

• ACTION INFO—Show your support for election change, send an email to [email protected] with ‘I support election debate reform’ in the subject line.

(John Schwada is a former investigative reporter for Fox 11 in Los Angeles, the LA Times and the late Herald Examiner. He is an occasional contributor to CityWatch. His consulting firm is MediaFix Associates.)

-cw