LOS ANGELES

GELFAND’S WORLD--My CityWatch colleague Ken Alpern recently published his views, as a practicing physician, on the current controversy over Republican attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, colloquially referred to as Obamacare. I agree with several of his concerns, but as a medical consumer rather than a medical provider, I tend to disagree with some of his views. Let's consider the agreements and the disagreements. 

Dr. Alpern makes the point that drug prices are too high. He is definitely right on this. He argues, "Innovation and capitalism are great, but predatory pricing must end. NOW!" 

Dr. Alpern also supports the aim of preventing insurance companies from refusing coverage based on preexisting conditions. He mentions in a positive light the rule that coverage on parental policies should continue to extend to offspring up to the age of 26. This has been a popular rule under Obamacare, and I certainly agree with Dr. Alpern on this. 

Dr. Alpern makes the general point that government should not create rules that by themselves create economic disincentives for businesses to maintain and expand employment. He makes the valid point that economic sustainability is a must. 

I don't have any problem with these points as general principles and as problems to work on. The real question is what to do about them. 

We might begin with a fundamental disagreement that is partly a matter of judgment but which depends on the facts. Dr Alpern states quite directly, "Which is arguably why 'Obamacare' was doomed to fail. Some benefitted, and some were truly hurt." 

This has to be my strongest disagreement. I don't think the Affordable Care Act is a failure. Whole shelves of books have been and will be written about the ACA and the historical era in which it was passed, so it would be redundant to insert an extended argument here. Instead, I will simply link to an excellent summary by Kevin Drum in which the overall success of the ACA is described:  At the time that Obamacare began, the United States had nearly one-fifth of its under-65 citizens lacking health insurance. At this point, the number of uninsured is down to ten percent. The success would be even greater except for the resistance by Republican governors and legislatures to the expansion of Medicaid in many states. A prominent example is the state of Texas, with an uninsured population of more than 4.3 million people. 

The problem isn't the Affordable Care Act itself, but the fact that a politicized Supreme Court created the loophole that allowed Republican governors to throw a wrench in the gears. Dr. Alpern uses the term predatory to refer to some pharmaceutical companies, but I think that the term fits equally well for the Republican governors who have been withholding Medicaid coverage from their poorest residents. Without this purely partisan (and spiteful) action, the levels of uninsured in the United States would be well below ten percent right now. 

And, might I suggest, a lot of heart attacks and cancers would have been treated earlier and more effectively had the victims of these predatory governors had access to Medicaid. 

There are a few other points to be made about Obamacare as a success. I suspect that most of us know someone who did not have health insurance prior to Obamacare. I know of at least two people close to me who have health insurance through the system. One has a low level chronic condition that now receives treatment, and that treatment makes it much less likely that he will suffer a major difficulty such as a heart attack. The overall benefit to our nation of limiting the need for treatments such as cardiac surgery is enormous, even if you only consider it on economic grounds. If you consider it from the standpoint of the individual who manages to avoid surgery or a prolonged hospitalization, it is even greater. 

Dr. Alpern seems to be optimistic that the new president and the Republican congress will be reasonable. He quotes the president as saying the he wouldn't let people die in the streets. He remarks, "The new GOP Congress is sticking its neck out there, and they should be open to compromise and negotiations with all sides -- especially Democrats -- because a loss of coverage for millions of Americans is NOT an option." 

Allow me to mention one fact that is all over the news. The repeal of Obamacare under the current bill in the House of Representatives is likely to reduce the number of insured in the United States by 15 million people, give or take a few. That's what the experts say. There is an expectation among the same experts that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will come up with a number pretty close to this level. 

So what did the Republican congress actually do when faced with this issue? Did they talk with their Democratic counterparts and try to find some compromise? Did they listen carefully to medical associations and business associations that oppose the bill? 

Hardly. The two House committees that had jurisdiction over the bill rushed to pass it out of committee before the CBO report could be finished. In addition, the right wing news outlets have been engaging in a propaganda campaign of their own to undermine the credibility of the CBO. The Republican allergy to facts and reason is getting to be a problem, whether it be medical economics or global warming. 

I'll give Dr. Alpern a plus for asserting an idealistic vision of Republicans and Democrats working together for the common good. I don't see it, but then again, I have a problem with the Republican bill getting rid of Planned Parenthood funding. I don't believe that the Republicans (or Donald Trump) will do anything about drug pricing. Mostly, I understand the view of expert economists that the real function of this bill is simply to cut taxes on the rich and pay for it by reducing medical services to the poor. 

And this brings us to one other fundamental point. Dr. Alpern makes a heartfelt argument about rights (in this case medical coverage) being linked to responsibilities. Here is some of what he says: 

"But otherwise-healthy individuals need to be (and this should be at a STATE level, not a FEDERAL level, because of that thing we call the CONSTITUTION) offered opportunities to work for their benefits, even if it means a part-time job that is required for state-covered healthcare. 

"If a person works 1-2 jobs without benefits, and is forced to get that part-time job just to get that healthcare, it's still an opportunity.  And it is NOT an incentive to avoid work to GET health benefits, which is what California and so much of the nation has now." 

Curiously enough, I agree with some of the sentiment expressed here, in the sense that people should have a chance to have gainful employment. Dr. Alpern says that people should be offered opportunities to work for their benefits. This sounds at least a little like the way that the federal government created WPA jobs during the great depression. 

He also suggests that creating disincentives to employment is a bad thing. I couldn't agree more, but I seriously doubt that the existence of Medicaid (or MediCal, as we call it in California) is enough by itself to convince people to avoid starting careers. For some people, getting medical attention is what they need to be able to hold a job. 

I will disagree with Dr. Alpern's assertion that job programs and medical coverage subsidies need to be on the state rather than the federal level as a matter of Constitutional law. Everybody likes to cite the words in the Preamble "to promote the general welfare," which seems to fit the ACA, but there is also Article I section 8, which gives Congress the power to tax. The Chief Justice of the United States argued the Constitutionality of the ACA based on this expressly stated authority. 

I would like to bring up one problem that neither the congress nor Dr. Alpern have talked about recently. The United States, for whatever reason, spends way more on health care per capita than any other advanced nation. We are all alone, out on the edge of the curve, for medical spending. For that amount of money, we don't get better longevity, and unlike other civilized countries, we leave some of our citizens entirely without coverage. 

The Affordable Care Act was supposed to be a start on dealing with both horns of this dilemma, the uninsured citizens was the first part but the uncontrolled growth in costs was definitely intended as part of the equation. This is the sort of problem that has to be confronted at the federal level if there is to be any progress. Perhaps Dr. Alpern has a different idea, but I don't see a big future in getting drug costs under control without federal intervention. The same argument may possibly apply to hospital bills too, since the amount that is paid depends largely on contracts with insurance companies and with Medicare. 

I think we've just scratched the surface here, and I suspect that Dr. Alpern and I may actually agree on a lot. For example, the number of medical residencies (and therefore the number of new doctors we turn out) is rather artificially restricted. That could be changed. Preventive medicine saves pain, lives, and money, as thousands of melanoma survivors understand. Let's not go back to the days when the history of a single basal cell carcinoma was a preexisting condition that made it impossible to get insurance in the individual market. 

But let's also try to remember that the current system makes being a medical consumer an ordeal almost anytime you have to deal with an insurance company. I wish the doctors would understand that the current health insurance system is just as hard on the patients as it is on your office staff.

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

-cw

EDUCATION POLITICS--A plaintive parent declares that with “one kid in a regular public district school and another in a charter school”, we should all just “get along”.

Here’s the formula for getting along: (1) You have to tolerate me and (2) I have to tolerate you; (3) Your existence cannot impinge on mine and (4) my existence cannot impinge on yours.

Charters and regular public district schools do not operate independently from one another, because two commodities are shared: (i) money (aka “resources”) and (ii) pupils.

These commodities are not infinite; both entities (charters and “regular district schools” – let’s call them “RDS”) essentially compete for the same “fixed” (amount of) commodity. This is what’s known as a zero-sum setup; the “margins are fixed”, the amount of available education dollars is more-or-less invariant, the amount of available pupils will not change (not appreciably, cities swell and drain a little but basically, babies have been born to this cohort already and we’ve got who we’ve got present now to educate).

The only change these commodities can see therefore is to “rearrange the deck chairs” – the ship is still going down the same way, but the chairs might be clustered differently. Pupils might congregate inside different schoolyards; monies might get distributed differently.

To make matters worse, the needs of both entities is not reciprocal, nor is the distribution of these commodities without impact on the other entity. That is, the cost to educate every pupil is not equivalent, some are costlier than others. And where you cluster funds is not a matter of +$1 here means -$1 there because the impact of a dollar matters depending where it is. There are economies of scale, for example, to be gained or it is long-acknowledged that severely disadvantaged communities require more money to come to equity (this is what Federal Title 1 dollars provide, it is why the new “LCFF” uses a formula to assign more money per capita to poorer schools than to relatively richer ones).

Therefore while it’s possible for both entities to tolerate one another, it’s not possible for their existence not to impact the other.

That’s where the fallacy lies. Folks who wonder ingenuously why we can’t all “just get along”, seem not to understand the pernicious consequences of charter schools on the totality of a public education system.

The underlying game-plan of charters is to rarefy its pupil-population, by hook or by crook. Sometimes in the past, this has been done illegally through fixing lotteries or selections processes. Sometimes the lottery process has been weighted through a sanctioned, if questionable, process. Empirical reports of “counseling out” already admitted kids are easy to come by; discouraging applicants to begin with through onerous application or enrollment procedures, for example, which disproportionately impact the “wrong sort” is another trick.

There are many, many, many sleights of hand employed to fix the underlying demographic of a charter school in a certain fashion (there are, after all, many, many charter schools). The reciprocal of fashioning a student body just-so, means that elsewhere in the system whatever is overrepresented among charters, is underrepresented among RDS.

Because remember, attendance is zero-sum; you cannot get more students into a school system than are there at the bottom line, you can only shuffle their distribution between schools.

That’s the meaning of segregation. It means collecting a certain type in one place.

By definition, then, the density of that type must be diminished elsewhere. When one school concentrates all jugglers within their walls, say, that means there are far fewer jugglers available to reside within a different set of walls.

When one school concentrates all ‘engaged-parents’ within their walls, say, that means there are far fewer engaged parents available to reside within a different set of walls.

This is the “business plan” of charters. To manipulate the pupil demographic (and concomitant parent demographic) to their advantage.

And the problem is that this necessarily impinges on me, my children and their school. By definition.

And this violates rules #3 and #4 of “just getting along”.

Sure we can get along if what you need does not negatively effect what I need. But your school system inherently, necessarily, diminishes mine. It will inherently, necessarily, with time, bankrupt mine. And it will inherently, necessarily, with time grow what is to me democratically intolerable social inequity with time.

“Regular Public District Schools” were designed to be by, for and about the public: it is democracy itself.

Charters are simply the modern incarnation of ancient tribalism, constitution-era separatism, pre-Plessy “separate but equal” schools. 

Sending your child – yes, yours – to sit beside someone who is different, smells different, looks different, speaks differently, thinks differently, acts different: this plurality is intrinsically valuable. It sustains a system of equal opportunity and it assures a possibility of awareness and tolerance of things-different.

As we march today nationally, even internationally, toward fascism, protecting with fierceness a public education system of equity for, and by us all, seems about as critical – most very especially for “progressive democrats” – as the very sustenance of democracy itself.

(Sara Roos is a politically active resident of Mar Vista, a biostatistician, the parent of two teenaged LAUSD students and a CityWatch contributor, who blogs at redqueeninla.com)

-CW

Tags: Sara Roos, Education Politics, public schools, charters, equality, fascism, racism, segregation

NEW GEOGRAPHY--No issue divides the United States more than immigration. Many Americans are resentful of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, worry about their own job security, and fear the arrival of more refugees from Islamic countries could pose the greatest terrorist threat. At the other end of the spectrum are those who believe the welcoming words on the Statue of Liberty represent a national value that supersedes traditional norms of citizenship and national culture.

What has been largely missing has been a sharp focus on the purpose of immigration. In the past, immigration was critical in meeting the demographic and economic needs of a rapidly growing nation. Simply put, the country required lots of bodies to develop its vast expanses of land and natural resources and to work in its factories.    

The need for foreign workers remains important, but the conditions have changed. No longer a largely rural, empty country, more than 80 percent of Americans cluster in urban and suburban areas. Many routine jobs have been automated; factories, farms and offices function more efficiently with smaller workforces. Since at least 2000, notes demographer Nicholas Eberstadt, the “Great American Escalator” has stopped working.

These changes suggest the need to rethink national immigration policies. In a country where wages for the poorest workers have been dropping for decades and incomes have stagnated for the middle class, allowing large numbers of even poorer people into the country seems more burden than balm. They often work hard, but largely in low-income service jobs and in the low end of the health care field. In California, home to an estimated 2.7 million largely Latino undocumented immigrants, approximately three in four Latino non-citizens struggle to make ends meet, as do about half of naturalized Latino citizens, according to a recent United Way study.

Overall, our current immigrants, legal and illegal, have not advanced as quickly as in previous generations. This, along with the crisis in much of Middle America, should be our primary national concern. This doesn’t necessarily translate to mass deportations or even severe cutbacks in legal immigration, as some, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and several congressional Republicans, have said. But it certainly does suggest taking a fresh look at how we view immigration.    

Learning From Abroad

So, what kind of immigration is best for America?

Models to consider are those that put premiums on marketable skills and language proficiency rather than family reunification. The Canadian and Australian systems, as President Trump correctly noted, are more attuned to their own national needs, compared with the U.S approach, which emphasizes family re-unification. Canadian authorities allow some 60 to 70 percent of their immigrants to come for economic purposes, notes Carter Labor Secretary Ray Marshall, supporting their system mainly by “filling vacancies that are measured and demonstrated in the Canadian economy.”    

Such a needs-based program would be a better, and fairer, way of addressing skills shortages than the odious H-IB program, which allows temporary indentured tech workers to replace American citizens. Instead, talented newcomers would be welcomed as future citizens and given the right to negotiate their own labor rates and conditions.

This emphasis on admitting immigrants with needed skills leaves Canadians and Australians with generally more positive views about immigration than Americans. Australia is one of only three countries in the world where children of migrants do better at school than children of non-migrants. Canadian support for immigration is particularly high in Toronto, which has been transformed from a sleepy Anglo enclave to a vibrant, diverse global capital.

But such hospitality is not limitless. A former Canadian immigration judge told me recently, in a tone of alarm, that his country’s invitation to 25,000 Syrian refugees could incubate the same sort of disorder that we see across Europe. There, in many heavily immigrant communities, poverty and isolation has persisted, sometimes for generations.    

I doubt many Americans would want to see the kind of social unrest we see across once peaceful places like Sweden, where women now complain of being perpetually harassed, even as supposedly feminist politicians look the other way. In France, Muslims make up about 7.5 percent of the French population compared to 1 percent in the U.S., but France has been ravaged by Islamic terrorism, Muslim-fueled anti-Semitism, and a widening cultural gap between the immigrants and the indigenous French population. In France and many other European countries, we see the rise of nativist politicians that make Donald Trump seem like Mother Theresa.

Citizenship and National Culture

The United States could be headed to a similar devolution. America’s ideals may be universal, but our political community has always been based on U.S. citizenship. You should not have to be an Anglo to admire the Founders, or to embrace the importance of the Constitution. Yet it’s now fashionable among some progressive activists to reject established American political traditions, which constitute a fundamental reason people have come here for the last two centuries.

Yet the “open borders” lobby on the progressive left increasingly demeans the very idea of citizenship. In some cases, they see immigration as way to achieve their desired end of “white America.” Some advocates for the undocumented, such as Jorge Bonilla of Univision, assert that America is “our county, not theirs” referring to Trump supporters. Others, like New York Mayor Bill di Blasio, refuse to differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants.

As usual, California leads the lunacy. Gov. Jerry Brown, who famously laid out a “welcome” sign to Mexican illegal and legal immigrants, has also given them drivers’ licenses and provides financial aid for college, even while cutting aid for middle-class residents. Some Sacramento lawmakers are pressing to give undocumented immigrants’ access to state health insurance. Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon recently boasted, “Half of my family would be eligible for deportation under the executive order, because they got a false Social Security card, they got a false identification.”

The “open borders” ideology has reached its apotheosis in “sanctuary” cities which extend legal protection from deportation to criminal aliens, including those who have committed felonies. Donald Trump opportunistically emphasized this absurd and inappropriate situation—sometimes invoking the names of murdered Americans—during his 2016 campaign. The only mystery is why it would surprise the chattering class that many voters responded to his message.

Most Americans are more practical about immigration than politicians in either party. The vast majority of us, including Republicans, oppose massive deportations of undocumented individuals with no serious criminal record. Limiting Muslim immigration appeals to barely half of Americans. Only a minority favor Trump’s famous “big beautiful wall” on the Mexico-U.S. border.

Yet even in California, three-quarters of the population, according to a recent U.C.-Berkeley survey, oppose “sanctuary cities.” Overall, more Americans favor less immigration than more. According to a recent Pew study, most also generally approve tougher border controls and increased deportations. They also want newcomers to come legally and learn English, notes Gallup. This is not just an Anglo issue. In Texas, by some accounts roughly one-third of all Latino voters supported Trump.

Sadly, immigration as an issue has been totally politicized. Obama deported far more undocumented aliens than his Republican predecessor, or any previous president, for that matter, without inciting mass hysteria. To be sure, Republicans face severe challenges with new generations that are more heavily Latino and Asian and generally more positive about immigration. The undocumented account for roughly one in five Mexicans and upwards of half of those from Central American countries, meaning that overly brutal approaches to their residency would be eventual political suicide for Republicans in many key states, including Arizona, Florida, Nevada, Colorado and even Georgia.

Any new immigration policy has to be widely acceptable -- both where immigrants are common as well as those generally less diverse areas where opposition to immigration is strongest. Unlike many issues, immigration cannot be devolved to local areas to accommodate differing cultural climates; it is, and will remain, a federal issue. A policy that melds a skills-based orientation, compassion, strong border enforcement, expulsion of criminals, and forcing the undocumented to the back of the citizenship line seems eminently fair.

Economic Growth: The Secret Sauce of Immigration Policy

Strong, broad-based economic growth remains the key to making immigration work. A weak economy, unemployment, population density, or sudden uncontrolled surges in migration, notes a recent Economic Policy Institute, drives most anti-immigration sentiment. The labor-backed think tank suggests it would be far better to bring in migrants with skills that are in short supply and avoid temporary workers, such as H-1B visa holders, who are paid lower wages, undercutting the employment prospects for Americans.

Given the demands of competition and changes in technology, it seems foolish to allow many additional lower-skilled people enter our country. This is not elitism: Industry needs machinists, carpenters and nurses as well as computer programmers and biomedical engineers. What we don’t need to do is flood the bottom of the labor market. Again, this reality is race-neutral. Economist George Borjas suggests that the influx of low-skilled, poorly educated immigrants has reduced wages for our indigenous poor, particularly African-Americans, but also for the recent waves of immigrants, including Mexican Americans, over the past three decades.

Like most high-income countries, America’s fertility rate is below that needed to replace the current generation. This constitutes one rationale for continued legal immigration. But our demographic shortcomings are also entwined with lack of economic opportunity, crippling student debt, and the high cost of family-friendly housing stock. In other words, one reason Millennials are putting off having children is because they can’t afford them.

Overall immigration is a net benefit, if the economic conditions are right. An overly broad cutback in immigration would deprive the country of the labor of millions of hard-working people, many of whom are highly entrepreneurial. The foreign-born, notes the Kaufmann Foundation, are also twice as likely to start a business as native-born Americans. It’s always been thus—and these aren’t just small, ethnic, family-owned restaurants we’re talking about. More than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their offspring.    

American immigration has succeeded in the past largely due to economic expansion. The historical lesson is clear: a growing economy, more wealth and opportunity, as well as a sensible policy, are the true prerequisites for the successful integration of newcomers into our society.

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

-cw

STOP EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS-When applied to a city, “entropy” means that the socio-political structure is disintegrating toward chaos. Re-phrased for Los Angeles, Entropy Theory asks: When will Los Angeles’ entropy reach a critical mass so that the city implodes as a viable entity? 

Economists ask a similar question: How can we know when the boom phase of the business cycle will crash and we enter the bust phase? 

One thing seems pretty clear – no one in the world is worse at predicting when a crash will occur than Wall Street. I doubt Wall Street has noticed a crash except in hindsight. Leading up to the Crash of 1929, there were many signs of trouble, but Wall Street attributed each jolt as an idiosyncratic event like Clarence Hatry’s use of fraudulent collateral to purchase U.S. Steel. Collectively, Wall Street failed to realize that the Whack of Mole Syndrome was due to an underlying systemic weakness. By the autumn of 1929, however, the problems may have been too deep to have yielded to any painless intervention. Also, when people are making money, their ears are closed to any warning of financial danger. 

Afterwards in 1936, John Maynard Keynes published his General Theory, showing that we did not have to wait until disaster was upon us, but rather could temper a too heated boom while lessening the decline of the bust phase. To say that Keynes is referring to “deficit financing” is to show that one does not understand Keynes. Step one in protecting the economic system was the same for Keynes as it was for Adam Smith in 1776, when he published Wealth of Nations – protect the price system. 

Similar to how the Barons of Wall Street ignored the price system during the 1920s, the United States departed from both Keynes and Smith in 1999 when Congress and President Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall. That allowed massive trillion dollar frauds to wreak havoc with price system. Around the same time, the government legalized credit default swaps. The result was the Crash of 2008. 

Yes, it is deja vu all over again. The prospect of listing Los Angeles’ obvious weaknesses is exhaustingly boring. It seems that the only thing keeping LA afloat is vast ignorance. People act on the basis of Belief with no use for Reality. People race toward a Charlatan who promises to restore them to the glory days of greatness or who serenades them with Alt-Fact after Alt-Fact. Trump’s and Garcetti’s personalities may be polar opposites, but their game plan is the same – “Alt-Facts uber alles.” 

As noted in a previous CityWatch article, “Alternative Facts’ are Nothing New for Angelenos,” the first attribute an Alt-Fact must have is to please the listener. Alt-Facts are tailored to make people feel good; myths are more soothing than reality. No one wants to hear that Cinderella was ugly and Prince Charming was an abuser. Fairy tales do not end with, “Ten years and four children later, Cinderella had to hide in the forest to escape the beatings of Prince Charming.” 

Thus, the LA Times and Eric Garcetti spin myth after myth, while most Angelenos slip off into dream land, never noticing that Wall Street is robbing them blind with mortgages and rents which are two, three or four times higher than merited. LA voters do not heed Albert Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. 

Thus, Angelenos know that for over a decade the city has been Manhattanizing, the infrastructure has been crumbling, traffic gridlock is the worse in the entire world, housing prices are among the highest in the country, Family Millennials are fleeing the City, LA has become the least desirable place for upper middle class workers, the streets are terrible, our taxes are increasing while our tax base is shrinking, we lost a $1.3 billion lawsuit due to our dangerous sidewalks, employers are leaving, crime is increasing, the city is insolvent again, and the mayor and city councilmembers are taking bribes to up-zone everything. 

Amidst this decay, Angelenos had a chance to call a halt to it and reassess the situation. Instead, they decided to push ahead doing the same thing that’s been destroying the city. They believe more densification will solve their problems as if the cure for arsenic poisoning is more arsenic. For some reason which defies explanation, Angelenos think that tearing down more rent-controlled housing and building more luxury units will reduce homelessness. 

Stories from the 1920s, however, parallel what we see in Los Angeles in 2017. People select the Alt-Facts which please them without regard to logic. When they hear that there is a glut of upper income apartments with a growing vacancy rate, they fail to realize the underlying reality -- if there were a demand for this housing, we would not have such a huge vacancy rate. The vacancy rate for rent-controlled units should not be confused with the vacancy rate for up-scale units. Tearing down 22,000 rent-controlled units does not create 22,000 tenants for high end apartments. Rather, it creates a housing shortage at the bottom end of the market which will never, ever be satisfied by constructing more luxury condos. 

Now that Angelenos, or the 8.28% of them who voted No on Measure S, have decided that we must densify, densify, densify, the task turns to figuring out when the Crash will hit. The difficulty is not knowing when people will realize that Prince Charming is wearing a “wife beater” tank-top.

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

@ THE GUSS REPORT-The primary qualifications for electoral longevity in the City of Los Angeles are identity politics and incumbency. Not crime fighting, traffic reduction, budget surpluses, better sidewalks or killing of fewer shelter animals, none of which have been achieved or improved upon by Mayor Eric Garcetti. He failed to permanently return the LA Rams to their 20^th Century turf, or build Farmer’s Field, the never-to-be-built stadium where said turf was supposed to lay. He probably will not bring home the 2024 Olympics, either. 

And Garcetti evaded debates prior to last week’s city primary as though they were the inside doorknob of a public bathroom. 

How the heck former Mayor James Hahn lost his 2005 re-election bid to Antonio Villaraigosa is anyone’s guess, though it suggests that only identity politics can beat incumbency. Or Latino identity politics trumped Hahn’s familial identity politics.

But the point is this: In Los Angeles, just being there at the public trough is a reliable path to victory … when running for re-election. Why accomplish good things for the people when it doesn’t matter on Election Days? 

Of all the incumbents at 200 N. Spring Street in the era of LA term limits – ironically, expanded term limits -- nobody behaves more incumbently (yes, that’s an adverb) than Mayor Eric Garcetti. 

At 46 years old, Garcetti has spent 61% of his adult life as an elected city official, and nearly 40% of it as either City Council President or Mayor. Those percentages will grow – slightly – depending on what sliver of his second term he actually serves before unwisely seeking higher office. 

Unwisely, because Garcetti has so little to show for his time in office, he is regularly mocked on KFI-AM 640’s “The John and Ken Show” as “Mayor Yoga Pants,” in part for infamously saying that society owes a debt of thanks to parolees for serving their time. 

The statistics bear out Garcetti’s uninspiring tenure. 

Of the 2,031,733 registered voters in the city for last week’s primary, Garcetti, despite an intoxicating level of name recognition (his familial legacy includes his father Gil being the District Attorney on the losing side of the O.J. Simpson murder case,) convinced only 202,278 of us, less than 10 percent of all registered voters, to vote for him. And he did it against a field of candidates who can charitably be described as very unknown. 

How will Garcetti inspire the 90% of registered LA voters who didn’t vote for him to suddenly support him when he runs to replace Jerry Brown or Dianne Feinstein as governor or senator, respectively?

If he runs as the candidate from Los Angeles, he will have to split that label with his predecessor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is still chasing his first legitimate post-mayoral job. If he runs as the Latino candidate, he will again share it with Villaraigosa. 

As I predicted for LA in 2017, “After Mayor Eric Garcetti is re-elected, he will abandon that which helped get him hired and quietly cooperate in federal programs to deport criminal residents, causing fear within law-abiding immigrant communities.” 

To wit: two weeks ago, our friends at LAist published a piece entitled “Confusion Remains Over Garcetti's Position On L.A. As A Sanctuary City.” 

How exactly Garcetti plans on winning the governor’s job by wavering on whether LA is or is not a sanctuary city, will be interesting to watch. He seems to have check-mated himself as someone who either causes LA to lose federal funding by not cooperating with federal immigration agencies, or by losing Los Angeles votes by passively enabling mass deportation. Villaraigosa, by comparison, has the luxury of not having to waver, since he is no longer governing.

Garcetti’s two leading opponents, themselves gurus in identity politics, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom (i.e. the San Francisco candidate and LGBT champion) and State Treasurer John Chiang (the Sacramento and Asian candidate) both currently hold state-wide seats and have similar advantages over Garcetti. Fortunately for all of them, at least former Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin recently decided to not run for Governor, but don’t expect her to endorse any declared candidate any time soon. 

Things are not going to be any easier for Garcetti should he instead try to run for U.S. Senator.

Former California Attorney General Kamala Harris is now firmly ensconced as Barbara Boxer’s replacement – a job she may hold onto for decades. And last week, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger toyed with the idea of running to replace incumbent Dianne Feinstein who, as she approaches 84 years of age, seems hell-bent on keeping the job for the duration. 

That leaves Garcetti having to do what he has yet embrace: his day-to-day job as Mayor of Los Angeles, rather than just its trappings and visibility. Otherwise, his second term as Mayor will be his final elected job. That’s how Antonio Villaraigosa treated being Mayor, and he is still looking for his next gig.

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

ALPERN AT LARGE--The concepts and opinions surrounding the "rights" and "needs" and "responsibilities" of Americans for their own healthcare are undeniably all over the place, and are as divergent as Americans' political affiliations.  Which is arguably why "Obamacare" was doomed to fail. Some benefited, and some were truly hurt.   

But the intent was good, and the arguments that we should just repeal "Obamacare" will fall as flat as those who rammed it down the throats of so many Americans.  There was too little transparency, and too little compromise, and too little economic incentive to help the nation's businesses and working families: 

1) The "Affordability" issue must be confronted.  

The "Affordable Care Act" wasn't affordable, except in the opinions of those getting subsidized and those not having to change their health plans (and those were the individuals most in favor of it!).

Drug prices are too damned high.  Not the new blockbusters, by and large, but the generics and older drugs that were going up so much faster than inflation that it made everyone's head spin. 

But credit the new president for compromise, and it should be remembered that Trump was the one who declared he wouldn't let people die in the streets.  Trump's meeting with his otherwise-erstwhile opponent, Rep. Elijah Cummings, on drug prices therefore bodes well. 

Innovation and capitalism are great, but predatory pricing must end.  NOW!  The research and development claims have some merit, but not enough to justify the kind of price hikes we've seen over the past decade. 

2) We mustn't let "Obamacare" or "Obamacare 2" become "Obamascare". 

Those who are truly struck down medically must be protected, and afforded access to quality healthcare, but there has to be compromise to allow affordability.  However, those who need a boot in the rear to get access to health care need to be confronted as well. And both groups very much exist. 

Trump had and has made no secret that he likes the no-preexisting-conditions and coverage-until-age-26-by-your-parents part of "Obamacare".  Young people with no income and/or in school, as well as cancer/seriously-ill patients must be protected. 

But otherwise-healthy individuals need to be (and this should be at a STATE level, not a FEDERAL level, because of that thing we call the CONSTITUTION) offered opportunities to work for their benefits, even if it means a part-time job that is required for state-covered healthcare. 

If a person works 1-2 jobs without benefits, and is forced to get that part-time job just to get that healthcare, it's still an opportunity.  And it is NOT an incentive to avoid work to GET health benefits, which is what California and so much of the nation has now. 

So the "repeal and replace" is more centrist than other plans, and will probably also need to be joined with the term "rights and responsibilities" in order to make this financially work out.

And for those healthy individuals who don't want to work?  Well, their access to the county health system is free, and our need to fret about them should be minimized. 

3) Finally, this isn't about politics--it's about health care.

The new GOP Congress is sticking its neck out there, and they should be open to compromise and negotiations with all sides--especially Democrats--because a loss of coverage for millions of Americans is NOT an option. 

Yet it's also about affordability, and fiscal/economic sustainability. 

Are we going to incentivize, or smack down, businesses, families and individuals to push them towards contributing to their own health care? 

Are we willing to allow more tax credits and cut costs elsewhere in government to pay for that? Are we going to encourage policies that incentivize hiring, or incentivize not hiring? 

Because when we encourage hiring of good jobs, particularly those with benefits, we best ensure that people and businesses will pay for insurance. Arguably, this was the greatest failure of the Obama Era, and it turned the Bush Recession into an Obama Depression paid for by $10 trillion in debt. 

GOP and Democratic partisans need to deal with their parties past failures, and move forward with a sense of apology and responsibility to the American people. 

Ad perhaps that last sentiment is the ultimate motivation--and answer--the long-awaited and debated issue of health care access and affordability for the United States of America.

(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

RESISTANCE WATCH--A New York Times column dated March 8 questioned whether Wednesday’s A Day Without A Woman protests would “test the movement’s staying power.” The answer seems to have been voiced by thousands of red-clad activists who participated in rallies, protests, and strikes in over 400 cities and over 50 countries worldwide.

In New York on Wednesday, four organizers of A Day Without A Woman were among over a dozen arrested for civil disobedience after blocking traffic near Trump International Hotel & Tower at Columbus Circle. Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez and Bob Bland – who were also the lead organizers of the Women’s March on Washington – were released by the end of the day. 

Closer to home, the day kicked off with close to 200 women in red standing behind Nury Martinez, the sole female member of Los Angeles City Council (photo above). At midday, protestors gathered at Grand Park at First and Spring, a considerably smaller crowd than had gathered on January 21 but still significant. Satellite protests were held throughout the city, including one at the intersection of Ventura Blvd. and Topanga Canyon Blvd. in Woodland Hills where a vocal red-clad group marched and shouted to the honking horns of commuters and passers-by. 

Organizers stated on the March for Women on Washington site, “On International Women’s Day, March 8, women and our allies will act together for equity, justice, and the human rights of women and all gender-oppressed people through a one-day demonstration of economic solidarity.” The group recognizes “the enormous value that women of all backgrounds add to our socio-economic system – while receiving lower wages and experiencing greater inequities, vulnerabilities to discrimination, sexual harassment, job insecurity. We recognize that trans and gender nonconforming people face heightened levels of discrimination, social oppression, and political targeting. We believe in gender justice.” 

Women were encouraged to show support in one or more of three ways – to take the day off of paid or unpaid labor, to avoid shopping for one day (with the exception of small women- and minority-owned businesses, and/or to wear red in solidarity with A Day Without A Woman. 

Regardless of how women and others showed support for A Day Without A Woman, the movement seems likely to thrive for as long as it is needed. As part of The Feminist Majority’s rallies and fundraising walks to support women’s equality – and the ERA – the group is organizing the 1^st Annual Los Angeles Rally and Walk for Equality to be held Sunday, March 26 in Pan Pacific Park, details forthcoming. 

For more information on Los Angeles-area events, visit Women’s March Los Angeles Foundation. 

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

GELFAND’S WORLD--Serious thinkers have been comparing the current situation in the U.S. with Germany and Italy in the 1930s. There is some legitimacy to this comparison, particularly in terms of the use of bullying and propaganda at the highest levels of government. But it's also fair to look back at the 1960s and '70s, to the aftermath of the civil rights movement and Viet Nam, and to the slow bloodletting of the Watergate affair. The way those events played out offer some clues as to how the Trump affair will itself play out. 

What do they all have in common? For one, they represent stark breaks from the status quo of the day. The Jim Crow, segregationist society was changed permanently, a nation at peace since the Korean War turned against itself over an undeclared war, and the presidency itself was tarnished by crime and cover up. Words like revolutionary can be used to describe the tumult. 

In the post-Watergate era, it was hard for Americans to pretend that the nation was without blemishes or that our leadership was always trustworthy. It was fashionable for commentators to use phrases like "this nation, for all its faults and for all that we must do to repair those faults, remains the greatest country on earth." You would have noticed that what we think of as American exceptionalism   took a big hit back then. Those with a long enough memory will recall that it was, curiously enough, the First Gulf War that signaled the end to the culture of self-flagellation that we had been enduring. The older President Bush had suggested that whatever position anyone had taken in the Viet Nam protest era, there should be the equivalent to a statute of limitations on blame. 

Another thing about that era and its events: Not only did the civil rights movement, Viet Nam, and Watergate signify revolutionary changes, they were also national embarrassments. Jim Crow and segregation were an embarrassment for obvious reasons. The Viet Nam conflict created distinct unpopularity overseas, and Watergate speaks for itself. 

We are now going through a moment which holds distinct parallels in terms of the revolutionary aspect of the Republican takeover and the international embarrassment that is Donald Trump. 

The point I'm reaching for is that at least in the early- to mid-1970s, Americans spoke about American exceptionalism in more hushed tones and, often enough, prefaced by the admission that as a nation, we had sinned. The current generation of Trump supporters seems to be rebelling against the idea that we could or should regret or apologize for anything. 

This raises the question which shall, I suspect, remain of paramount interest for a while: At what point if ever will Trump supporters begin to realize, and having realized, admit, that Trump is unadulterated poison to democracy and to the country's well being. When will they talk of American exceptionalism prefaced by admissions of imperfection? 

In particular, at what point will a substantial majority of the American public recognize that you cannot tell whether Trump is telling the truth or spinning a yarn -- about anything -- ever? 

We can imagine a not so distant future when it will be possible to ask with a straight face, "Which Trump are you talking about, the birther Trump or the later Trump, following his admission that Obama was born in the United States? Which Trump are you talking about, the Trump who claimed that Obama bugged the Trump Tower, or the later Trump? 

Bernie Sanders …asks, "What should we do if the president is a liar?" A tough question, indeed. 

The Republican answer to the Affordable Care Act 

Well, this is one of the emergencies we have been predicting and dreading. The House of Representatives now has a bill to replace Obamacare with its own version. As several analysts have pointed out, it's really just a tax cut for the rich which makes up for some of the federal income reduction by reducing the subsidies that poorer people on Obamacare and Medicaid have been getting. You can fill in your own reverse Robin Hood joke here, but it's potentially less of a joke and more of an American disaster. 

So far, the hard right also dislikes the proposal, but in their case, it's because the bill isn't cruel enough. 

Another thing -- when Trump was on the campaign trail, he made brash promises about fixing the whole health insurance problem so that everybody gets great care and we all spend less money. It was a typical Trump approach to campaigning -- make grandiose promises backed up by nothing but bluster, mix in a dollop of hate towards foreigners, stir, and collect the votes. It will be a big question for historians whether Trump believed his own claims or whether it was just a con. Either interpretation speaks badly of the candidate and of the country that elected him.

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

-cw

WELCOME TO CITY HALL--Hat tip to Lucy Han of Playa Del Rey and her group, FOTJ (Friends Of the The Jungle), for this one. 

The Issue--While both the City and the LAUSD are charged with maintaining a safe environment for our school children, it turns out they don’t talk to each other much, and the safety of our school children can be suspect when it comes to their interactions with the homeless. 

Aside from just living in LA, there are two circumstances under which our children can interact with the homeless -- going and coming to school, and going on field trips within the City. 

In terms of going and coming to school, the City of Los Angeles has a Municipal Code (Section 85.02) which says that the homeless cannot live within 500 feet of a public school or other “sensitive area” like a park. Okay, for the majority of students who get dropped off and picked up by car or bus, that’s fine. 

But it isn’t fine for those k-12 students walking to school across the 500 foot zone. And it isn’t as if the homeless population has any clue about the Municipal Code, or would care if they did know. 

The second major area where school kids can interact with the homeless population just happens to be in the Ballona Wetlands  in Playa Del Rey. 

It’s a major preserve that over 7000 school children visit each year, and the ingress and egress from there just happens to be a place where a large number of homeless hang out, “dwelling”in their vehicles and using the public restroom facilities. 

‘No, No, Not My Problem’--The FOTJ folks have been trying to use the political system to rectify this problem. First they reached out to Councilmember Mike Bonin (CD11), a veritable paragon of probity. He’s been running for re-election, but without any serious opposition, his re-election will be a lock by the time you read this. 

His Chief of Staff, Chad Molnar, did what politicians do -- he blew the issue off on the City Attorney. So there you have it: not Bonin’s problem. This is probably true, since Bonin’s real problem is bending over for every big developer in his District. See my article, It’s Called a Bonin.  Within that context, why indeed would he care about school children? 

Being stout of heart, the FOTJ folks went to the City Attorney’s Office. Since Friends of the Jungle is not the City Attorney’s client, they got what you would expect. A regurgitation of the Municipal Code. Chalk another one up to Feckless Feurer for caring. 

Finally, the FOTJ went to the ultimate power in LA City, Mayor Eric Garcetti who is all over TV and re-election mail, but largely absent in the wetlands. After being directed to the Mayor’s “Homeless Policy Director,” Alisa Orduna, they were told how wonderful the Mayor’s Healthy Streets Program is; she opined that if the FOTJ would just talk to the homeless, these people would say “cool” and leave. 

For the rest of it, she told them they should talk to their Councilmember. Right on. 

Finally, as of the deadline for this article, they have contacted their LAUSD representative, Steve Zimmer, so we won’t know the outcome until after the LAUSD election. For those who don’t know, Mr. Zimmer is under attack by the California Charter School Assn. folks (CCSA), led by none other than our former mayor, Richard Riordan. There are a number of candidates on the ballot, but the runoff will be with Charter favorite, Nick Melvoin – all fueled by millions of dollars spent on the District 4 race instead of education. 

Personally, I hope Zimmer wins. He actually pays attention to his District, and would likely see what he can do to help the school children who visit the Ballona Wetlands. 

The Disconnect--Only in LA do you find dichotomies like this. On the one hand, there are somewhere over 50,000 homeless youths in LA County, which is a scary number. At the same time, the LA Unified School District acknowledges somewhere around 15,000 students who are homeless, and even has a special homeless unit within the District to help them. 

So, on the one hand we have a significant homeless problem, and even the LAUSD student body has one as well. 

On the other hand, the City of Los Angeles and its City Attorney have this weird way of claiming to protect their student population in the LAUSD from adult homeless folks, many of whom have severe mental and physical health issues. 

It is pretty clear that the politicians at City Hall have no clue what they are doing about this, and it is equally clear that the bureaucracies of LA City and the LAUSD don’t coordinate or talk to each other. 

The Takeaway--By the time this column posts, we in Los Angeles will have approved yet another tax to help the homeless, Measure H, a new 1/4 cent sales tax for the County of Los Angeles. This is on top of the $1.2 billion LA City bond measure the voters approved in the November 8 General Election. 

For those who voted for Measure H without reading the fine print, the expenditure of its 1/4 cent sales tax for the next ten years is to “comply with the Approved Strategies to Combat Hopelessness,” a 130 page document that supposedly integrates with the 300 pages of the LA City Bond measure HHH. You can read about the County ballot measure here, including links to the details.

If the early results of the already implemented City Bond Measure (HHH) are any indication, with Measure H we will be once more throw money at a problem without a realistic chance of success in implementing this County measure. Check out this article.  

At a recent LANCC meeting, we were told Assembly Member Sebastian Ridley-Thomas (D-54th AD) that once the number of homeless grows to much over 50,000 in LA, the problem rapidly becomes insurmountable. Well, by the time the November LA City Measure (HHH) was passed, I was told that the real number of homeless in LA was already well over 50,000 and climbing. As of this column, the results of a January recount were not available. 

The $1.2 billion in bonds that you and I will have to pay for are already a fizzle by all accounts. When we throw in the new 1/4 cent tax to address the overwhelming complexities of our homeless, all controlled by over 400 pages of bureaucratic “planning,” does anyone actually believe that the issue will really be ameliorated? 

Pardon my cynicism, but no wonder the City Hall elite can’t cope with helping 7000 school children avoid potential problems when interacting with the homeless parked at Ballona Wetlands. The LA City incumbents have won in a walk, and can now go back to their real business: approving every big real estate development they can find.

On the other hand, maybe Steve Zimmer will win the runoff for LAUSD seat 4. One can hope.

(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.

MEASURE S … A PLANNER’S ANALYSIS--In the past few days the foreign media, like the Guardian, and even most of the U.S. media, have blasted out the story of the 9,000 CIA hacking documents that WikiLeaks made public after redacting critical information. 

Based on press reports, these documents reveal a long list of cyber tools that invade computers, cell phones, and smart TVs. The release’s long-term impact is hard to know, but before WikiLeaks went public with this information, one scholar already concluded that World War III would likely be a cyber-war. 

In the words of the University of Wisconsin historian Alfred McCoy, a WW III conflict between the United States and China will end with an electronic whimper, not a bang: 

As the Chinese virus spreads uncontrollably through the F-6 satellite architecture, while those second-rate U.S. supercomputers fail to crack the malware’s devilishly complex code, GPS signals crucial to the navigation of U.S. ships and aircraft worldwide are compromised. Carrier fleets begin steaming in circles in the mid-Pacific. Fighter squadrons are grounded. Reaper drones fly aimlessly toward the horizon, crashing when their fuel is exhausted. Suddenly, the United States loses what the U.S. Air Force has long called “the ultimate high ground”: space. Within hours, the military power that had dominated the globe for nearly a century has been defeated in World War III without a single human casualty.  

But, without WikiLeaks and Professor McCoy, in Los Angeles we can figure out the city’s deep politics and players without a City Hall deep throat. Even though Measure S, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, lost in the March 7 election, it allowed us to learn the following about the inner workings of LA’s urban growth machine:  

• Based on the extensive research of the Los Angeles Times and Patrick McDonald for Measure S, real estate developers and City Hall’s elected officials engage in extensive pay-to-play. We now know who exactly make the payments, who receives the payments, and what goes on between them: money buys discretionary planning and zoning approvals. 

• We also have a better idea of what these many land use entitlements are worth to property owners and investors, although more research would be helpful for the certain planning-related fights to come. 

• We also know who financed the no on S campaign to ensure that the cozy and lucrative status quo continues. The big funders were 10 large real estate companies, who openly contributed $8 to $10 million. Furthermore, their accomplice was Rusty Hicks, the well-paid director of the LA County Federation of Labor, who ponied up more than a $1 million of his members’ dues. According to the LA Times, Hicks is also close to Parke Skelton whose SG&A firm lead the campaign against Measure S. 

• We also know that the no on S campaign strategy focused on LA’s housing crisis, an approach SG&A gleaned from focus groups. 

• For that matter, reading between the lines, we also know the “economic” theory that the no on S funders wear as a fig leaf to justify their private greed. It is neo-liberalism, especially its belief in trickle-down economics. Its other principles are deregulation of land use and elimination of Federal and CRA urban programs, except for policing. Even though City Hall’s elected officials are nearly all corporate Democrats, they are fully onboard with this once Republican approach to municipal governance. 

• For that matter, without WikiLeaks the no on S campaign also revealed another supporting player for their “urban growth machine.” These are the non-profits that the SG&A campaign operatives drew into their top-down “coalition.” 

• We also learned about the contentious role of the non-profits. They maintain the status quo by (inadvertently) putting balm on the wounds created by their affluent funders and board members, especially those who maximize profits through real estate speculation. 

While the supporters and staff of the non-profits usually have the best of intentions, they rarely examine the cause of the problems they address, such as real estate speculation. Likewise, because of their close relationship to their funders, they have incrementally absorbed their trickle-down theories. As result, the non-profits no longer call for the restoration of slashed urban programs or local laws regulating land use. Even though it is still too early to know which non-profits experienced direct economic pressure to oppose Measure S, the broad outline is already visible. Most of them are ideologically lined up with the large real estate companies and City Hall politicians who ardently campaigned against Measure S. 

How should we now use all of this information? 

One of the most useful long-term lessons from this campaign was, “There are no permanent defeats, and no permanent victories.” I interpret this to mean several things: 

First, the election results are obvious; the status quo prevailed, so the no on S boosters now need to put up or shut up. Based on what we have learned, my crystal ball tells me to expect the following, all of which conflicts with their often-vituperative no on S message. 

• City Hall's soft corruption will hardly miss a beat. 

• Despite a glut of luxury housing, home prices and rents will continue to rise until the next great recession hits and/or rampant foreign speculative investments in local real estate dries up. 

• As for LA’s housing crisis, the city’s inclusionary zoning programs, existing and proposed, will not keep up with the loss of affordable housing through demolitions, displacement, and gentrification. 

• Ditto for Measure JJJ since its loopholes will prevail over it promises. 

• Measure HHH will also prove to be a disappointment. Cronies will get fat contracts through insider deals, followed by relaxed scrutiny. 

• Traffic congestion will worsen because nearly all new projects, both by-right and spot-zoned mega-projects, are automobile-centric. 

• Bicyclists will still face dangerous roads with serious accidents because LA is not following the example of cities, like NYC, where the City builds separated bicycle lanes. 

Second, the resurgent status quo creates enormous opportunities for the organization, energy, and knowledge that the Yes of S campaign mobilized to morph into a permanent organization, such as United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles. Even without a City Hall WikiLeaks, we know more than enough to take on many important tasks, such as: 

• Strategic support for the many future local campaigns against City Council approved but un-planned mega-projects. 

• Networking these local ad hoc organizations together into a permanent, citywide organization focused on good city planning, especially through the (promised) updates of the General Plan’s different elements. 

• Strengthening CityWatch and other alternative news and information outlets so they can engage in relentless exposes of City Hall’s continued skullduggery, including pay-to-play and the exceedingly poor planning outcomes it inflicts on Los Angeles neighborhoods and residents. 

• Developing a progressive planning agenda based on three principles: sustainability, equity, and community-based planning. In future columns I will attempt to flesh-out this agenda, such as a focus on public improvements in lieu of private real estate deals. 

Your help is greatly appreciated in all of these efforts.

(Dick Platkin is a former Los Angeles city planner who reports on local planning issues for CityWatchLA. Comments and corrections invited at [email protected].)  Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

LA IS NOT NEW YORK--According to the LA Times, LA Metro ridership is still falling -- even though billions have been (mis)spent on extra capacity over the last 30+ years. By my count that's the second time this year that the Times has broached this tender topic. As a member in good standing of the LA "good government" (googoo) establishment, the paper had for many years chosen to tip-toe around the bad news. 

Readers may know that some of us began flogging the dead horse in the mid-1970s. Go to the attached proceedings and read the contribution by the late UCLA Prof. George Hilton. He was among the first to write sensibly and clearly that LA is not NY -- and trying to make it so would be a phenomenal waste. But even LA Times’ coverage will be for naught. Billions more will be spent. Pouring good money after bad is what the great and the good in City Hall do for a living. 

We are in the early years Uber/Lyft and all manner of ICT information sharing. These are the game-changers. For the past two months, my wife and I have graduated from a two-car household to a one-car-plus-Uber-plus-walkable-neighborhood HH. The game-changers are here. Conventional transit was never a game-changer.

(Peter Gordon is Emeritus Professor, USC Price School of Public Policy. His current research addresses how the nature of cities impacts economic growth prospects. This perspective was posted first at New Geography.)  Photo by John Schreiber/MyLANews.com   Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

SPECIAL TO CITYWATCH … NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY JUST GETTING STARTED--In our huge and wonderful Los Angeles, the "civic conversation" is often said by academics to be weak. And it's true that I can point to only a few times in which LA residents engaged in and led a big, brawling conversation about where the city should head. 

One such brawl was the successful blogger-led fracas (remember bloggers?) over whether the hated Department of Water and Power should control much of the solar-installation industry. Another was the unsuccessful Valley Secession movement, which asked voters whether 1.6 million people should form their own city to free themselves from a City Hall that repeatedly cheated them on services and political clout. 

In both cases, it turned out that the residents were not disinterested or weak. But in our livable LA, made up of many villages and numerous downtowns, residents could not to find a way to be heard. And their frustration finally exploded into healthy ballot box wars that proved, once again, that true democracy is not only crucial, it's messy. 

Measure S, which was defeated at the polls on March 7, falls directly into that category. That's why it has inspired the most robust civic conversation in Los Angeles in years. 

Measure S was soundly defeated — our numbers fell from a neck-and-neck race shortly before Election Day, when billionaire developers poured in a last-minute $5 million to dominate the airwaves, and even Gov. Jerry Brown came out against Measure S. 

But it's clear from post-election media coverage that while our reforms failed, Measure S won the argument.

Mayor Eric Garcetti and the City Council have promised many reforms in reaction to Measure S — almost all stuck in committee or gathering dust on a shelf. 

On Thursday, Garcetti again proposed a vague plan without any deadline for updating the long-stalled Community Plans. He finally signed an Executive Directive enacting a very limited reduction in "ex parte," or backroom meetings, aimed solely at his Planning Commission — and only after a developer formally files an application to get around zoning rules, an action that often happens long after numerous backroom meetings.

Many of Garcetti's planning commissioners deny they hold private meetings. According to city officials who were asked to produce records of the Planning Commissioners' private meetings under the California Public Records Act, none of his planning commissioners bothers to maintain any record of who they meet with.

At his Thursday press conference, under questioning by journalists, Garcetti again refused to adopt the key reform, of ending backroom dealmaking between City Council members and developers and himself and developers. 

Garcetti is no doubt relying on a convenient opinion from the City Attorney last year that developers and their lobbyist are "residents" of LA and elected leaders need to hold private meetings with residents. Aside from the fact that many key billionaires who get backroom deals do not live in LA, it's absurd to conflate these private deals with informational meetings with LA residents. 

As a lifelong LA journalist-now-campaign manager, I was also pleased to read a media report that quoted Michael Weinstein, president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the key funder of Measure S, as saying, “This will go down in history as a campaign that didn’t win the vote that had the best results. Nobody in this campaign has defended the current system.” 

The website, known for its "skyscraper porn," and avidly pro-developer bent, then went on: 

That’s true. Even Mayor Eric Garcetti, who handily won reelection Tuesday night, acknowledged that, “the diagnosis is agreed upon by all of us.” But he opposed Measure S, calling it the wrong “prescription.” The election results are not likely to put to rest a heated battle over the future landscape of Los Angeles. 

And that brings us to what happens next. 

Despite public agreement that City Hall's development process is broken, elected leaders continue to let mega-developers, from the Lowy mall billionaires to the Lowe resort billionaires, treat LA communities like pieces on a chess board. The City Council and Planning Commission repeatedly override LA zoning as if the rules are a mere annoyance. 

Important reform sometimes needs more than one cathartic effort. 

Gay marriage took more than one try on the ballot, a fact that is almost impossible to believe today. The far more wonky "redistricting reform" — a statewide vote to stop seat-warming legislators from gleefully custom-drawing the voting district lines around their preferred voters, to ensure their own re-elections — was a robust debate. Until voters approved redistricting reform, few Californians were certain what a "voting district" even was. 

Los Angeles is a great city, and it's worth making sure we get it right. 

Getting it right may mean a second ballot measure. Or it may mean free training so that neighborhood leaders have as many tools to fight City Hall as lobbyists have tools to manipulate City Hall. 

Or it may mean that powerful people who privately agreed with Measure S will now join us in tilting the balance of power. 

"Getting it right" won't be a debate over what types of towering buildings get built where. This is far more fundamental. It's about who decides how and where LA's infrastructure, housing, parks and services are planned and intertwined, as required, to best serve residents. 

That's not radical. It's crucial. 

Getting it right means that the City Council and mayor must relinquish the secrecy to which they are addicted — and which obscures from the public eye LA's wildly non-democratic planning and zoning system. 

More than 77,000 people voted for Measure S because backroom deals cut between our individual City Council members (yes, your City Council member, too), the mayor, and rich developers are repugnant in a democracy. 

Not surprisingly, they are creating an imbalance between what LA really needs, and what it's getting. 

As then-LA City Planner Gail Goldberg famously warned in 2006, "In every city in this country, the zone on the land establishes the value of the land. In Los Angeles, that's not true. The value of the land is not based on what the zone says ... It's based on what [the] developer believes he can change the zone to." 

Gail Goldberg went on: "This is disastrous for the city. Disastrous. Zoning has to mean something in this city." 

We agree. (Please read the Yes on S campaign's report, here, Pay-to-Play in Los Angeles City Government.) The Pay-to-Play report details years of secret meetings between developers and city council members, council staff, city planning officials, and other city staff.  

Under this system, City Hall can only produce more of the mess that Gail Goldberg foresaw: 

-massive traffic backups on our streets, created by bad planning

-pushing out our working families through ill-advised gentrification

-skyrocketing rents set off by a foolish frenzy of approvals of luxury housing that, clearly, does not trickle down. 

We are hearing from residents citywide asking "what's next? How does this get fixed?" 

We will continue to press our elected leaders to reform themselves. But meanwhile, we at Measure S will keep the faith with residents, by tapping their energy and their new awareness. 

Measure S during the past year held dozens of meetings, town halls, debates, rallies and press conferences, from Chatsworth to San Pedro to Baldwin Hills to Westchester to Koreatown to Woodland Hills to Studio City to the Palisades and beyond. 

We made the case that the City Council, by putting our zoning system up for sale, has fueled an unprecedented level of land speculation and greed in LA After the defeat of Measure S, we wrote in an open letter to our supporters:
"The Measure S campaign succeeded, completely, in challenging City Hall to be worthy of LA's residents.

"LA elected leaders now widely agree that wealthy developers should of course not get to write their own environmental impact reports, a glaring conflict of interest, nor should developers hold private meetings to try to influence LA city planning commissioners.

"LA elected leaders also now agree with Measure S, that the City Council must return to its long-abandoned job of updating our 20-year-old General Plan and Community Plans. They also agree that the Council's frequent rewarding of special exemptions that let developers ignore these Plans must be a very rare act.

"It is now up to us, to see that City Hall does not bury these promises in committee, or otherwise delay these reforms. In the wake of this hard-fought election, they know we're watching them."

(Jill Stewart, a former journalist, is campaign director for the Coalition to Preserve LA, sponsor of the Measure S.) 

-cw

CAPITAL & MAIN SPECIAL REPORT--Fernando E. Hurtado scrolled through photos on his mobile phone in a pristine new examination room of South Los Angeles’ federally funded St. John’s Well Child and Family Center. Nearby, his wife, Amy Areli, waited with two of their four children as the younger boy fidgeted nervously. 

“He’s getting his immunization shots today,” Hurtado grinned at the 3-year-old before pausing at a close-up of a woman’s forearm and what looked like a mosquito-bite-sized bump surrounded by a patch of ruddy inflammation. The next image revealed a gaping, half-dollar-sized crater where the bump had been.

“My wife got a tiny cut on her arm that became infected,” Hurtado explained. “It was [Methicillin-resistant] staphylococcus. She spent nine days in the hospital. They told me that if we hadn’t had Medi-Cal, the bill would have been more than $100,000. If this would have happened without medical coverage, there would have been no way for us to afford to pay that kind of expense.” 

On the same day that congressional Republicans set the stage to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the 35-year-old father, who installs artificial lawns, grimly reflected on the shadow that his family and the majority of St. John’s patients have been living under since the election of Donald Trump signaled the coming end of the law that has dramatically transformed California’s health-care landscape. 

“Before my wife got the infection,” Hurtado said, “our 2-month-old baby was also in the hospital, with an infection for [chicken pox], when he got an infection in his head and he was hospitalized for four days for the same [staph] bacteria. I imagine them not having medical coverage. Yes. Of course I’m worried.” 

(Photo: Fernando Hurtado and his wife, Amy Areli, with two of their four children at St. John’s Well Child and Family Center.) 

Though the form that Trumpcare will take remains vague, for Hurtado and his family — and the more than 50 percent of their newly insured South LA neighbors who now rely on the state’s ACA Medi-Cal expansion for their health coverage — the future remains frighteningly uncertain. They are not alone. 

Over five million Californians have received coverage under Obamacare — 3.7 million through Medi-Cal and 1.4 million through Covered California — and the state has logged the largest percentage-point decline in its uninsured rate of any state, dropping from nearly 17.2 percent in 2013 to 8.6 percent in 2015. 

St. John’s alone has enrolled over 18,000 previously uninsured Angelinos, nearly all of them black or Latino, and more than doubled its insured-patient base. The health center has aggressively embraced the new ACA population to dramatically expand preventative and primary care throughout the region, which before the law had been ground zero of California’s uninsured crisis. 

“We provide free medical, dental, mental health and support services, and case management in about 300,000 patient visits a year at 14 sites and two mobile [clinics],” St. John’s Well Child and Family CEO Jim Mangia told Capital & Main. “We provide health-care services to the homeless. We serve thousands of homeless folks through two mobiles that go into the riverbeds and to help buy homeless shelters. And we’re the largest health provider in South LA, which is the largest area of contiguous poverty in the United States.” 

But with Trump now in the White House, those gains are in the crosshairs of the new president and the Republican congress. At stake for Californians is $20.5 billion a year in federal ACA subsidies. The murkiness surrounding what will happen next has left the state’s political and public health leadership with little choice but to brace for the worst and hope for the best. 

“It is almost impossible to develop a contingency without knowing exactly what we are dealing with,” state Senate Health Committee Chair Dr. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) told Capital & Main in an email. “A loss of federal funding would be devastating for low-income and middle-class Californians who rely on the ACA for their health insurance. We plan to do everything we can to protect the people of our state and ensure stability in the health insurance market and Medi-Cal program.” 

St. John’s spotlights a lesser-known aspect of the Affordable Care Act — namely, its role as a conduit for $12 billion in construction infrastructure spending and operational funding for the expansion of private nonprofit health centers, which are known as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC). These provide low-income and immigrant communities with quality health care, regardless of a patient’s ability to pay. That makes the center both an exemplar of how much California stands to lose, as well as an unexpected harbinger of what resistance to the abolition of the ACA might look like. 

“I started that literally the day after the election,” Mangia said about planning for the Trump era, “and now I’ve got all of these players. There’s a lot of special interests that benefited from the Affordable Care Act. … We’re talking about, ‘Okay. What’s our advocacy need to look like? Who do we need to be talking to? Who do we need to bring to the table to craft a solution in the state?’” 

(Photo: Jim Mangia, President and CEO of St. John’s Well Child and Family Center.) 

Forty-five percent of St. John’s patients are ineligible for insurance under ACA because of their immigration status. According to Mangia, who was part of President Obama’s health policy committee when the Affordable Care Act was first being drawn up, addressing the plight of those ineligible for Obamacare because of immigration status was always part of the plan. Care for the undocumented is partially paid by My Health LA, a no-cost health-care program run by LA County. Private fundraising makes up the rest. 

The FQHCs have been instrumental in braking the country’s decades-long expansion of America’s health-care inequality gap, which continues to be one of Obamacare’s most significant achievements. 

Even more transformative, perhaps, is the quality of the medical care and the innovations that ACA has delivered. The law reorganized payment methodology and radically re-prioritized the health-care system with pay-for-performance measures that shifted the focus of providers from end-of-life and sick care to prevention and primary care. It encouraged innovations like the patient-centered “medical home” — a holistic delivery model designed to improve quality of care through team-based coordination of care, for the “whole” patient. Tying Medicare payments to the quality, rather than the quantity, of care that characterized the pricey, pre-Obamacare fee-for-service model, created efficiencies and surpluses for health centers like St. John’s that could then be used to serve California’s estimated 3.3 million uninsured, along with its undocumented population. 

“These relatively modest reforms actually ended up being revolutionary in all sorts of different ways,” recalled Anthony Wright, executive director of the advocacy coalition Health Access California. “There was all this really exciting work to provide people medical homes, and have early intervention to keep people healthy before they got sick in the first place. There was exciting work about how to treat issues around substance abuse and behavioral health medically, rather than criminally, which was starting to have profound benefits to not just our health system but to our criminal justice and corrections systems. If we undo the Medicaid expansion, we undo all that progress in one swoop.” 

Preserving that expansion has been the focus of California resistors, including consumer groups, labor unions and Democratic lawmakers, since election day, both in the current campaign by patient advocates, to bring public pressure on Trump and Republicans, and in anticipating the full extent of the damage to California’s Medi-Cal expansion that will need to be controlled. 

Nevertheless, it’s difficult to resist what is still unknown. And the extent of that damage won’t be clear until the plan is unveiled sometime after Trump’s nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services, Georgia Representative Tom Price, is approved by the Senate. 

Recent promises by Trump for a speedy and concurrent repeal and replacement of ACA with “insurance for everybody” that is “much less expensive and much better” have only further muddled the picture. The broad strokes remain at odds with what has been outlined in separate ACA alternatives by Price, who opposed ACA’s fundamental reforms, and by House Speaker Paul Ryan. And Price’s Tea Party antipathy to federal entitlements makes future attempts to cut Medicare and Medicaid likely. 

“Both of [the plans] would repeal most of the regulations under the ACA, but they would restore some aspects of the law, including subsidies for people to buy health insurance,” explained Gerald Kominski, Professor of Health Policy and Management, and director of the University of California, Los Angeles Center for Health Policy Research. “But their subsidies would be substantially lower than those currently available under the ACA, and would [go] back to a market that’s largely regulated at the state level rather than [have] the layer of federal regulations [that has standardized] the individual insurance market. So it’d be a little bit of a free-for-all.” 

California resistors are divided as to whether the state would have the political will or financial wherewithal to make up the federal government’s $20 billion share of the Medi-Cal expansion and Covered California, should it be cut, or to even go it alone with a version of single-payer. 

“I have always believed that health care is a right for everyone in California and the country,” state senator Ed Hernandez said. “The dilemma arises on how to finance it and whether the public supports it. … The state would be unable to backfill the loss of $20 billion in federal funds without massive tax increases or major program reductions.” 

Wright illustrated California’s difficulty in translating a moral imperative into a health-care entitlement by pointing out that the recent passage of Proposition 56, the two-dollar cigarette tax that, beginning in April, will generate a billion dollars annually for Medi-Cal, had faced three ballot fights — and $200 million in opposition spending by tobacco companies — to become law. 

“Before we get to what California does,” he cautioned, “we all need to be focused on the federal fight. The framework and financing that they provide is going to be very determinative about what is possible for California to do, whether it is an Obamacare lookalike or single-payer or anything else.”

Mangia expressed what might be the ultimate vision of California resistance. “I think it would make a very, very strong political statement across the country if the Republicans repeal [Obamacare] and California says, ‘Okay. Well, we’re going to keep it.’ Democrats control two thirds of the legislature. There’s a Democratic governor. I think we have a real opportunity.”

(Bill Raden is a freelance Los Angeles writer. This article was first posted at Capital & Main.)  Illustration by Lalo Alcaraz. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

MY TOWN--One upside to the acrimonious debate over the ill-fated Measure S is the number of people who have been pulled into the discussion over the future of our City. Of course, this new engagement didn’t seem to translate into actual voter turnout, but … baby steps, right? 

The resounding victory of the No on S campaign – even without the benefit of a catchy, rhyming slogan – places the burden squarely on that unlikely coalition of billionaires, Berniecrats, bankers, and bicycle advocates to come up with solutions to the various crises we face as a result of the status quo.

After all, Measure S sought to change that status quo – the opponents fought to keep it in place. And by status quo I mean the longstanding practice of granting zone changes to specific projects contrary to the language of the City Charter. I don’t mean to imply opponents of Measure S want to keep the City as it is.

To the contrary, the No on S crowd seems to want a development-driven Utopia, where housing is cheap and abundant and the homeless cease to exist. If you, like me, actually kind of like Los Angeles as it is – you are in a distinct minority. Apparently, a majority of the ten percent of registered voters who actually vote in Los Angeles would prefer LA to be more like Houston – where the absence of zoning laws have kept rents low and developers happy. 

We know what Rick Caruso, CIM Group, and Wells Fargo want: more development. And for the armchair activists so recently engaged in local politics, that should be good enough. With each new glitzy skyscraper, the pro-development-at-all-costs people can pat themselves on the back secure in the knowledge that they’ve done their part for the poor, the displaced, and the homeless. Well done people!

But for those of us more engaged in the actual struggle of the poor, undocumented, and homeless in our communities, we all should be able to agree that Phil Anschutz has not exactly been waiting for an excuse to ride in on a white horse and save us.

Nonetheless, the No on S coalition have pointed to several specific actions designed to help the poor, the young, renters, and the homeless that otherwise would have been stymied by passage of Measure S.

For example, the opponents of Measure S argued that many essentially shovel-ready affordable housing units would have been stopped by Measure S. Since Measure S no longer poses an obstacle to those projects, we should be able to track their progress. 

The same can be said for rising rents and home prices as well as loss of rent-controlled units and displacement of long-term low-income residents – all of which the opponents of Measure S told us would be increased by the measure’s passage. The removal of Measure S from that equation should be expected to result in a decrease in that type of activity around the City. Let’s see how that works out.

Finally, we’ve been told that the City has committed itself to updating the zoning laws on a regular basis in order to respond to the changing needs of our communities. In fact, the City has recently passed an ordinance requiring update of the community plans every six years. Let’s see if the City Council lives up to that commitment.

Since the opponents of Measure S consistently told us that updating the zoning laws was a long, onerous process – and, therefore, we couldn’t afford Measure S’s moratorium in order to pressure the City to update its plans – this particular goal should be something we see progress on fairly quickly. We shouldn’t need to wait six years, in other words, to know whether the City is going to update its community plans.

Although every ounce of optimism has been wrung from my soul by the long slog to make some positive change in this City, those who opposed Measure S seems fairly giddy at the sea change this election has brought. Let’s see if they can deliver.

(David Bell is a writer, attorney, former president of the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council and writes for CityWatch.)

CONNECTING CALIFORNIA--Los Angeles should drop its bid for the 2024 Olympics -- before it gets chosen. It’s true that Paris has long been the favorite to be awarded the games during an upcoming vote in September. The Paris bid has broad international support, the City of Light has come close to winning the games in recent bids, and sentiment is on its side. 2024 would be the 100th anniversary of the last Olympics in Paris, the 1924 Games portrayed in the Oscar-winning film Chariots of Fire. 

But the contest is changing. All other contenders for 2024 have now dropped out (Budapest hung on the longest before bailing last month,) leaving just LA and Paris. And after reviewing documents from and about both bids, it looks to me that LA has the superior bid, with greater public support, stronger management (led by two of LA’s most skilled civic operators, Casey Wasserman and Gene Sykes,) and a better plan for producing an exciting event without the organizational meltdowns and cost overruns of previous Olympics. 

Indeed, what’s most promising about LA’s bid is also what makes it perilous. Los Angeles is bidding not merely to hold the Olympics but to transform them. Specifically, LA pledges “to create a new Games for a new era” and to “refresh” an Olympics brand. 

There’s plenty of transforming and refreshing to be done. The Olympics over the last generation has become more associated with corruption than sport: There’s the constant doping by individual athletes and nations’ sports federations. There’s the vote-buying by previous bid cities, including Atlanta and Salt Lake City. There’s the propagandistic use of the Games by the world’s worst human rights violators, from Russia to China. There’s the displacement of poor people, from East London to Rio, that has come with Olympic facility construction. And there’s the overspending and overpromising that has left generations of Olympic cities with debt and dead Olympic-related infrastructure. 

(Photo left: Mary Lou Retton celebrates her balance beam score at the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. Retton, 16, became the first American woman ever to win an individual Olympic gold medal in gymnastics. Photo by Lionel Cironneau/Associated Press.) 

All of which raises the same hard questions you might ask of a wonderful neighbor who romantically pursues a dashing foreigner even though the foreigner’s previous relationships ended badly. 

Do we really want the Olympics? How can we be sure that Olympic corruption won’t sully our reputation? And most of all, if an LA Games did succeed in hosting a profitable and “clean” Olympics, what’s to prevent the Olympics’ wheeler-dealers from exploiting an LA triumph to revert to their old tricks and take advantage of other global cities for future Games? 

Such questions may sound peculiar, but California has a peculiar relationship with the Olympics. While the rest of the world has become a sea of discontent with the corrupt Olympic movement -- in this cycle, Toronto, Hamburg, Rome, and Boston all have dropped bids -- we remain an island of Olympic love. One poll in Los Angeles showed 88 percent support for the Games. 

California’s Olympics love is rooted in nostalgia, for both the 1932 Games and for the famously well-run and profitable 1984 Games, which remain one of LA’s proudest civic moments, when we embraced a vision of ourselves as an international city. I attended those games as an 11-year-old (I saw Edwin Moses win the 400-meter hurdles) and remember them fondly. 

But the Games we’re bidding for now are not those Olympics. Today’s Games are bigger and bloated, with too many sports and expense. They also come with more baggage. The most recent Summer Olympics, held in Brazil last summer at twice the anticipated cost, were a disaster for that developing country, contributing to economic and political turmoil, and leaving behind useless infrastructure. 

The budget for the next Summer Games, in Tokyo in 2020, is now projected at four times the original estimate. And these recent problems come on the heels of other disasters. The 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, were beset by state-sponsored doping and massive construction corruption, with Vladimir Putin’s government rewarding friends with lucrative contracts. The 2008 Games in Beijing provided a pretext for China’s rulers to crack down on dissent and demolish important neighborhoods. The 2004 Games in Athens left massive debts that contributed to that country’s economic collapse. 

These games all centered on the “Development Model” of Olympics -- using the bid to transform cities by building. LA’s bid is a welcome departure because it relies on existing facilities for nearly everything, which helps contain the projected budget at just over $5 billion. (Sochi spent a reported $50 billion.) 

Viewed purely as a question of LA’s self-interest, the case for seeking the Games is strong. 

California’s economy depends so heavily on international trade and tourism that an Olympics could serve as advertising for our global connections and openness, particularly as much of America turns isolationist. And a 2024 Games would allow LA to show off its rapidly expanding transit system.

Plus, the Olympics, for all of its problems, still offers opportunities to volunteer (an LA Olympics would need tens of thousands of volunteers,) to root for your country, to promote the value of physical exercise, and to take a two-week respite from contentious politics during an election year. 

The Olympics would be fortunate to have us host. No city in the world is better suited to the games, from our dry and temperate summer weather to our wealth of sports facilities to our expertise in handling mega-events. “Make Los Angeles the permanent host of the Summer Olympics,” the sports economist Andrew Zimbalist advised last year.  

Most of the typical concerns about a Los Angeles Olympics -- about cost overruns, about traffic, about terrorism and security costs -- are overblown, and are well planned for in LA’s bid documents. The Games would be run by LA 2024, a separate organization, which means Olympic planning shouldn’t be a distraction for local elected officials who need to focus on Southern California’s everyday needs, from ill-repaired roads to the housing shortage. 

Some news reports have suggested that President Trump and his bans on travel and refugees and immigrants could hurt LA’s chances of winning. But the French have their own anti-immigrant, racist populist -- the leading presidential contender Marine Le Pen -- to defend. And Olympics politics is much more about the politics of the International Olympic Committee and the federations for all the different sports. 

No, the real question about LA’s bid is whether we’re too good for the Olympics. Our association is likely to sully us, and require moral compromises. For example, The New York Times reported last month that the U.S. Olympic Committee was soft-pedaling its response to the Russia doping scandal because of fears that a hard U.S. line could hurt LA’s Olympic bid. 

Such compromises pale in comparison to the moral hazard of saving the Olympics with an excellent LA bid. Hollywood warned us about a situation like this. If we win, our Games could become an Olympic version of The Bridge on the River Kwai, a 1957 film classic about Allied prisoners of war who dutifully build a railroad bridge that serves the interests of their Japanese captors. In the same way, an Olympic movement, restored by Los Angeles’ dutiful work, would be newly free to go back into the world and grant the Games to repressive regimes and developing countries that can’t really afford it. Do we really want to make that possible? 

Nope. It’s not our job to save the Olympics. Instead, Los Angeles should preserve its Olympic ideals -- by dropping our bid. Yep, that means handing the 2024 Games to Paris. C’est la vie. We’ll always have 1984.

(Joe Mathews is Connecting California Columnist and Editor at Zócalo Public Square … where this column first appeared. Mathews is a Fellow at the Center for Social Cohesion at Arizona State University and co-author of California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It (UC Press, 2010). Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

CORRUPTION WATCH-On Tuesday, November 8, 2016, Americans elected Donald Trump President on the basis of the Politics of Rage. Millions of Americans, albeit less than 50%, were out for revenge. Although the Democrats’ hubris coupled with an inability to count votes in the Electoral College tipped the scales in favor of Trump, without the passion for revenge throughout much of the nation, Trump would not have won. 

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017, Angelenos re-elected Eric Garcetti Mayor of Los Angeles on the basis of the Politics of Ignorance. 

Garcetti was already the longest serving politico at LA City Hall. The voters first elected him as councilmember for Council District 13 in 2001. In 2006, he became City Council President which in LA is an extremely powerful position anyway, but even more so then because Mayor Villaraigosa was seldom in town and when he was, Tony V was primarily concerned with chasing skirt. Thus now, more than anyone else in LA, Garcetti can take credit for the city’s current condition. 

During Garcetti’s tenure, Los Angeles has declined from being a Destination City to which people aspire to an Exodus City from which people are fleeing. Every day in every way, life is LA is becoming worse. Yet, Angelenos are ignorant of the connection between city government and the deterioration in the quality of their lives. 

1. The infrastructure is decaying with about three water mains bursting a week and creating sink holes into which cars disappear. 

2. Traffic congestion has gone for bad to terrible to second worst in the nation to worst in the country to worst in the U.S. and Europe to having the worst traffic gridlock in the entire world. (Inrix 2017 Traffic Scorecard.) 

3. There is an outward migration of the middle class that has to aggravate to split between the very poor and very wealthy since the middle has picked up stakes and moved away. The lack of a vibrant middle class also kills the opportunity ladder and the middle class is to step out of poverty. 

4. The City’s Dependency Ratio is progressively worst each year. The Dependency Ratio is important to gauge a city’s future since it measures the percent of people working versus the percent of dependents. Generally, that is the number of young people between 0 and 18 added to the number of over age 65 versus everyone in the middle. Since the young and the elderly do not generate income, they are a drag on the tax base. The smaller the middle class, the greater the tax burden on the middle class. 

5.  The City’s homeless problem is escalating due to Garcetti’s Manhattanization of Los Angeles which has destroyed over 22,000 rent-controlled units since 2001. When veterans, the disabled and the poor are evicted, they often cannot afford market-rate housing and thus they end up on the street. An increasing number live in SUVs and cars. The services for the homeless are very expensive for the LA, but Garcetti does not provide extra funds to make up for the loss of police and paramedics because of the need for them to tend to the increasing problems of homelessness. 

6. Garcetti promoted Measure HHH to allegedly build affordable housing, but via Measure JJJ, that money can subsidize luxury apartments -- of which the city has a glut, over a 12% vacancy rate. (As the UN reported on March 1, 2017, it is worldwide trend to construct dense housing units for money launderers and oligarchs to hide and cleanse their money. Thus, LA provides money to construct “investments” for wealthy Russians. I guess in some respects, Garcetti is not all that different from Trump.) 

7. Housing prices in LA are beyond out of control due to the developers’ practice of “being nice to” councilmembers to get whatever Up Zoning they desire. Once a friendly councilmember places any Up Zoned project on the city council agenda, it automatically passes unanimously – even if no councilmember votes for it. The City Council vote tabulating machine is programmed to Vote Yes for everything all the time. 

8. In the 15 years of Garcetti’s tenure, LA has gone from a world class destination City to a failing city which is again insolvent -- and yet a whopping 81% re-elected Garcetti for Mayor. 

9. The City is insolvent – again —with a $250 million deficit. 

10. The crime rate is ratcheting upwards. 

11. LA is the most park poor large city in the country. 

12. The density in DTLA and Hollywood and the Westside has only just begun to escalate. Once it is under way, it will make traffic even worse and housing prices continue to rise. As traffic worsens, it seems that more people use cars because mass transit is very slow; in addition, it goes very few places while cars go everywhere and it is increasingly dangerous with unreliable timetables. Thus, the mere prospect of an arduous commute results n people seeking the comfort and relative safety of their own vehicles. 

The Difference between Trump and Garcetti 

Unlike Trump, who is a mentally disturbed, twitter-addicted braggart held aloft on the wing of resentment and rage, Eric Garcetti speaks softly and carries a big war chest. He is a low-keyed political genius who skims along on a cloud of misinformation and misdirection. Also, he is backed by the LA Times which has been the master of Alt-News since its inception in the 1800s. The LA Times’ secret motto is “All the News the Elite Wants You to See.” Thus, Angelenos swim in a vast sea of ignorance. They know things are worse every day but they are clueless as to the cause. 

The results of the Politics of Rage and the Politics of Ignorance are essentially the same – deterioration.

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

CITY HALL EXPOSED--This is a timeline of City Council and LA City Staff backroom meetings with developers and lobbyists; campaign donations to City Officials; and “spotzoning” approvals for controversial projects. 

A Special March 4, 2017 Report on Backroom Governing and Undue Developer Influence Upon LA Elected Leaders 

Sourcing: All facts provided by Los Angeles City Ethics Commission or contained in official documents released by Los Angeles City Council members as required by the California Public Records Act. 

Released by the Coalition to Preserve LA, Yes on Measure S 

Summary:

Yes on Measure S today releases a special report of official city information that has been released publicly, but unpublished to date. It reveals how LA City Hall works behind closed doors, on behalf of developers and usually without the knowledge of the public, to get around an area's zoning rules.

Most developers donate to LA elected leaders throughout the backroom process. 

"Pay to Play In Los Angeles City Government" contains a comprehensive timeline of private meetings and dinners involving billionaire developers, elected City leaders and their staffs. It reveals that private meetings are rarely granted by elected leaders to LA residents who question the developments. 

The timeline, entirely made up of official city documents released under the California Public Records Act, or official city campaign finance and lobbyist data published by the L.A. City Ethics Commission, includes: 

- Dates and people present at private backroom meetings between developers and City Council officials and city employees. 

- Donations received by elected officials from these developers during the process. 

- City Council approval of projects achieved by badly bending LA zoning rules, often after private meetings and/or donations from the developer. Nine Los Angeles City Council members were asked by the Coalition to Preserve LA to divulge this public information. All nine failed to release the

subject of these backroom meetings with developers. They divulged only the fact that the meetings happened, in response to California Public Records Act requests by the Coalition. 

The nine LA City Council members, of 15 on the City Council, were asked for their official appointment calendars regarding these large-scale developments, because their Council Districts contain a significant number of projects that have been allowed, by vote of the City Council, to ignore city zoning rules. 

Some of the nine City Council members responded long after the 10-day deadline under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). 

City Councilman Jose Huizar failed for several months to provide his meeting calendar. Councilman Huizar complied with California state law only after attorneys for the Coalition demanded that he divulge this public information. 

The official city data provides a direct look at the campaign and lobbying cash spent to influence City Hall leaders as they decide, in a non-transparent and money-influenced system, how and where LA and its neighborhoods should absorb large-scale developments. The official city campaign and lobbying data, and the official calendars released by City Council members, show that collusion between megadevelopers and elected officials is endemic. Zoning is for sale at City Hall. (Read the complete report here.)

-cw

IMMIGRATION WATCH--California legislators have filed a Freedom of Information Act request to learn what federal immigration authorities are up to in their state. 

The request was filed this week by California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon, both Democrats, for “information about recent Department of Homeland Security policies and Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities.” 

Federal authorities appear to be cracking down on immigration with a recent “surge in enforcement activities,” the lawmakers said in a statement. But federal authorities have provided “limited information,” despite repeated requests, the statement continued. California is home to 5.4 million non-citizen immigrants, and almost half of all children in the state have at least one parent who is an immigrant. 

“When the safety of Californians is at stake, we must demand greater transparency, with the backing of federal courts if necessary,” the lawmakers said. “The lives and physical safety of many thousands of Californians — citizens and immigrants, documented and undocumented — depend upon knowing this information.” 

Immigration authorities arrested hundreds of people in February in raids across the country. Dozens of those seized had no criminal record. An ICE official said the activity was “routine.” 

Rendon and DeLeon seek details on recent federal enforcement in California, including the massing of immigration agents outside a Southern California church shelter in order to “ambush, arrest and detain homeless individuals seeking warmth there.” They also cite the case of an immigrant woman attempting to obtain an order of protection against her husband in a courthouse, where agents escorted her out and arrested her. 

The lawmakers demand information on ICE and Department of Homeland Security enforcement in California near “sensitive” areas, such as at schools, hospitals and churches; detainees’ access to lawyers; and treatment of young people in the Dreamers program who were brought to the U.S. as children. 

The request also seeks information about people detained and deported in an intensive five-day sweep in Los Angeles County last month that netted some 161 individuals. 

An ICE spokeswoman provided a link to the agency’s policies concerning sensitive locations, and cautioned that some information about detainees may not be available because of privacy concerns, the Sacramento Bee reported. 

Santa Cruz police blasted federal officials last month for lying, using a crackdown on a local gang as an excuse to secretly round up undocumented immigrants. 

Immigration enforcers said they felt constrained under former President Barack Obama. But now, after President Donald Trump campaigned on an anti-immigration platform, agents are feeling emboldened, according to unions representing Border Patrol agents and ICE officers.

(Mary Pappenfuss is a Trends reporter for the Huffington Post where this piece was originally posted.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ANIMAL WATCH-LA Animal Services GM Brenda Barnette informed the Commission at a West Valley meeting this week that it is safe and recommended by UC Davis to surgically sterilize six-week-old kittens at only 1-1/2 pounds in order to adopt them out of the shelter at their highest level of “cuteness.”

She also announced that the City is implementing a “pilot program” with this new policy at the Chesterfield Square shelter in South Los Angeles. If it is successful, in three months it will be extended to all city shelters. 

If LA’s desperation to reach the elusive “no kill” goal continues, this could also soon mean these tiny, helpless creatures may be given away “free.” That is what happened recently under a grant by the ASPCA, which paid adoption fees for cats and eliminated the need for adopters to make an investment. This does not say much about sustainability of the “no kill” plan. What happens when the mythical metric is met and those who benefit from the acclaim and increased donations move their subsidies out of Los Angeles? 

Under the Hayden Law, California policy for shelters, states, “Adoptable animals are those over eight weeks of age…”  Barnette did not discuss the violation of this provision.

The plan to perform surgery on barely weaned kittens became the topic of impassioned opposition by distraught shelter volunteers and rescuers at the meeting. 

The pilot program for this “experiment” at a shelter in one of the most economically challenged areas of Los Angeles did not include any long-term study or data that indicates performing sterilization surgery on barely weaned kittens and releasing them to uncontrolled and unmonitored adopters at public shelters has been successful. As a public, tax-funded shelter, LA Animal Services cannot refuse adoption to anyone without proof of past violations of laws regarding animal care or cruelty.

The Chesterfield Square shelter is located in a blighted, semi-industrial area of South Los Angeles, where stray and diseased feral cats roam the streets and starving kittens cry for help from behind a fenced lot across the street from the shelter. It is mystifying to rescuers and advocates why this shelter would be chosen for a “pilot program” to release vulnerable 6-week-old kittens with immature immune systems. A few have suggested cynically that a high post-adoption mortality or illness rate might be less likely to be reported in this community. 

It is necessary to understand the limitations and challenges of this area to fully grasp the mind-boggling decision to start such a precarious program in South Central LA, where the largest part of the surrounding population has limited income for potential veterinary bills or special pet care. And, it is unlikely many adopters from other parts of the city will drive to Chesterfield Square. 

In 2013 Eric Brightwell wrote on Amoeblog, “Chesterfield Square is without a doubt, one of Los Angeles’ most obscure neighborhoods. The obscurity is somewhat surprising given the neighborhood’s longstanding and dubious distinction of having the city’s and county’s highest violent crime rate.”

The latest LA Times Mapping Tool shows Chesterfield Square still ranked No. 1 in the city for violent crime. The median population age is 31 years, and more than 30 percent of residents have not completed high school. Average household income is $37,737, with over 50 percent at less than $20,000 year, according to the Times. 

Residents of this area represent various ethnic groups. Most are hard-working, honest people, but many who own pets also struggle with the constraints of poverty and are plagued by the hazards of their daily lives. Thousands of dogs and cats run loose in the streets and have open sores resulting from mange, parasites and untreated wounds. Many starve to death in alleys or are killed by cars.

Xaque Gruber wrote in a 2013 Huffington Post article, “Nowhere is Los Angeles' homeless dog population a more chronic problem than in South Central where thousands of canines run wild. And nowhere is a blind eye turned more than in this section of the city.” 

Do we wonder how cats fare in this desperate and disease-ridden environment for animals? GM Barnette admits in her Board report dated February 7, 2017, that, "South LA Chesterfield Square shelter has been struggling with an inordinate influx of cats and kittens infected with life threatening virus infections..." 

DOES “CUTENESS” JUSTIFY SURGICAL RISK? 

Cuteness? If this is the criteria for choosing a pet kitten, what happens in a very few weeks when it becomes a cat? Kittens grow quickly and are not toys. They need to learn bite-inhibition and non-injurious play from interaction with siblings. If “cuteness,” rather than personality and affection, is the criteria GM Barnette is using for adoption-appeal, it appears the audience is families with young children, rather than adults who are more concerned with long-term bonding. 

“Kittens at this age, by necessity are focused on their own survival,” says early-age spay/neuter expert Dr. W. Marvin Mackie, who advises waiting until eight weeks of age for surgical sterilization. “At six weeks they are being thrust by Nature from dependency on their mother or a ‘foster’ into a world where they must be able to provide for their own subsistence and safety. Adopters should look for a kitten old enough to develop interests beyond its basic egocentric needs so that they can forecast the basic personality and desire for human interaction of a pet that will share their home for the next 15 to 20 years.” 

While veterinarians agree on the importance of getting kittens out of the shelter environment as soon as possible, Dr. Mackie, who pioneered contemporary early-age spay/neuter in the late 1980’s, expressed shock that a shelter would not do all possible to assure the safety of these tiny juveniles -- not only from the surgical-aspect, but also from a developmental and socialization perspective. (View kitten growth progression here.)   

The Best Friends blog states, “Eight-week-old healthy kittens are fully weaned and should soon be ready to be spayed or neutered and to find their new forever homes.” 

WHY IS BARNETTE SUDDENLY IN SUCH A RUSH TO ALTER KITTENS? 

Brenda Barnette, a former dog breeder and AKC legislative representative in Seattle, is on record opposing mandatory spay/neuter laws. Her December 2016 Woofstat report shows 492 breeding licenses have been issued to unaltered-dog owners in Los Angeles, with a 42% increase this year. 

During Barnette’s tenure in LA, there has been no consistent city-wide media promotion or enforcement effort to stop backyard and in-home breeding of dogs and cats. Barnette and Councilman Paul Koretz of the Council’s Personnel and Animal Welfare (PAW) Committee have blatantly rejected microchipping or licensing of cats to stop overpopulation and provide accountability for ownership of owned outdoor cats.  

Why the sudden rush to alter infantile kittens? Maybe because Barnette has repeatedly said kittens and cats keep her from reaching “no kill.” She admits in her February 7 Board report that the "South LA Chesterfield Square shelter has been struggling with an inordinate influx of cats and kittens infected with life threatening virus infections..." (Emph. added.) So, why institute a risky surgical program in that facility? 

Here are some questions/comments proposed by skeptics and cynics: 

--“Is the purpose of six-week surgeries and adoptions to place feral kittens as pets without having to disclose their background?” 

--“For each one-pound kitten that dies from a spay, Brenda counts as a spay for her credit and not as a euthanasia -- also to her credit. Fake metrics.” 

--“If they die during or after surgery, it will reduce the shelter’s cat population.” 

--“Whether adopted into homes without experience (or even those that are former cat owners) the possibility of post-surgical complications is much more likely in these very fragile animals. Will they be able to afford the care?” 

--“Will they report morbidity or deaths to the shelter? Does Brenda Barnette really want to know?”

And some questions/comments from veterinarians: 

--“Can shelter staff determine age? This needs to be done on dentition and choosing those under 6 months of age could put the animals at more risk. Is there adequate shelter staff to monitor recovery?” 

--“Testicles drop into the scrotal sac around 6 weeks, so many may still be retained, which will cause the surgeon to go deeper to look for them-- more invasive surgery and increased time under anesthesia for these kittens.” 

--“If the gas is delivered by intubation the tiny tubes plug up easily with even a small amount of mucous and the animal can suffocate.” 

--“My guess is that someone needs data to publish a paper regarding spay/neuter at this age, so you can get data fast through a large agency with a huge number of cat impounds. In academia, it is publish or perish.” 

OPINIONS ON FACEBOOK AND ELSEWHERE 

Many veterinarians commented on a Facebook page started by Dr. Robert Goldman, highly respected veterinarian and specialist in spay/neuter who worked for LA Animal Services. Some support this program, but most wrote that they felt six weeks is too young and articulated their professional concerns. 

Dr. Kate Hurley of UC Davis wrote: “…[T]his recommendation came from me and my team and is well supported by science and an enormous amount of experience…A number of shelters have now spayed thousands of kittens at this age with no documented increase in morbidity or mortality.” 

Brenda Barnette also joined in with a rather caustic comment and Dr. Goldman replied:

“Brenda Barnette: The pilot we are planning to try at one shelter is supported by UCDavis Koretz (sic) Shelter Medicine Program, Maddies Shelter Medicine Program in Florida and the Shelter Medicine Veterinary Assoc. I am disappointed to see you making this public grandstanding on Facebook rather than through you (sic) professional associations. Seems decisive I’m sorry to say.” 

“Robert Goldman:  Sorry if this seems like grandstanding to you. This is me reaching out to friends on professional associations as well as other stakeholders concerned. My question to Dr. Julie Levy is to the heart of the issue: if Veterinary Medical Professionals are to make the best decisions for their patients but in a municipal setting are judged by non medical personnel who hold sway over their employment but also set the conditions for the patients, how is that conflict resolved in the best interest of all?” 

There is another exchange between GM Barnette and Dr. Goldman, who wrote a public letter addressed to the LA Times in regard to LAAS shelters and Barnette’s contention that “…by the end of the end of this year Los Angeles will achieve 90% live save for shelter dogs and cats.” 

He states (in part), “As a veterinarian who performed spays and neuters for the Department on a part time basis from August 2015 to October 2016, I witnessed first-hand how the focused (and often falsified) pursuit of these numbers, called "metrics," has taken the focus off the shelter animals themselves and resulted in animal neglect that is at times tantamount to animal abuse.” 

Dr. Goldman writes that he was informed on July 13, 2016, there was no more funding for his spay-neuter vet position after he supported the position of a volunteer who spoke about shelter conditions.

There has been no shortage of spay/neuter funds. The LA Animal Services report shows a balance of $5,193,971.40 in the Animal Sterilization Fund during the period July 1 – July 31, 2016. 

IS LA REALLY REACHING “NO KILL”? 

What is really going on at LAAS to cause a sudden rush to do spays and neuters most vets consider inadvisable? Why push kittens that may not be completely weaned into adoptive homes with unknown experience and resources? Is it related to the fact that Best Friends is already past its promised deadline to make LA “no kill”? 

Barnette announced at the Feb. 28 meeting that Best Friends will be paying its NKLA rescuers from $75 to $150 each to “pull” cats from the LAAS shelters to reach “no kill.” Relocating animals is not the same as adopting them from the shelters directly to permanent local homes. How will “no kill” be sustained in Los Angeles after the funding by Best Friends and ASPCA moves on?

(Phyllis M. Daugherty is a former City of LA employee and a contributor to CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

GUEST WORDS--Will Los Angeles finally admit it’s a metropolis? And if so, what kind of metropolis does it want to be?

That may seem a strange question, given the size of the LA region. But Los Angeles is of at least two minds. Yes, we’re home to world class universities, two pro football teams, the nation’s largest port complex by volume, the third-busiest airport in the U.S., more manufacturing than any other American city, and we’re bidding to host the Olympic Games for the third time. But many people in LA also expect the city to be as open and livable as any suburb.

How we Angelenos see our city, and what we want for its future, is coming to a head not in a pitched street battle out of West Side Story, but at the ballot box. On March 7, Los Angeles voters will consider Measure S, an anti-development ballot measure that proposes to put a moratorium on certain types of building projects for two years.

Many of the measure’s details address rather arcane urban planning codes that are admittedly outdated. But the campaign for Measure S has secured a base of support by tapping into a sentiment closely held by older residents, suburban dwellers within in the city limits, and NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”) constituencies that Los Angeles is changing too rapidly into a dense, mega-city.

As Los Angeles residents experience record-high rental rates and property values, developers are constructing larger infill projects, building multi-story apartment complexes akin to more traditional urban forms. The way Measure S supporters see it, these denser developments create more traffic, change the character of neighborhoods, and create more luxury housing at the expense of more affordable housing in older, smaller complexes. In short, LA is becoming too much of a metropolis.

But the coalition opposing Measure S—developers, businesses, affordable housing advocates, urban living enthusiasts, and most of the political establishment—have a fundamental disagreement with the basis for Measure S. These opponents say L.A must preserve any and all avenues for construction of schools, hospitals—and especially scarce housing. Cutting off the supply of housing with overly restrictive regulations in the midst of a well-documented housing shortage is a prescription for land use malpractice. Without needed supply, rents and property values increase to match housing demand. It’s a simple argument, which also happens to make tremendous sense.

Maybe the answer is even simpler than we wish to acknowledge: We’re not just metropolitan; we’re a metropolis. We just need to be a better one.

Reality, if not perception, is with the opponents. Angelenos don’t realize it, but LA is already the densest urbanized area in the nation, with some 7,000 people per square mile. (New York is in third place, at a mere 5,319 people per square mile.) But the enormous growth of the suburbs in post-WWII Los Angeles gave Southern California an ethos that’s been hard to shake, even in the 21st century: The relic of a notion that we’re entitled to two cars in every driveway and a Weber grill on every backyard patio.

Los Angeles is of at least two minds. Yes, we’re home to world class universities, two pro football teams, the nation’s largest port complex by volume, the third-busiest airport in the U.S. … But many people in LA also expect the city to be as open and livable as any suburb.

Of course, LA has evolved into a metropolis as it has grown in population, driven by domestic migration, immigration from Asia and the Americas, and the simple math of the birthrate for Angelenos already here. But it can be hard to understand that because, as Reyner Banham wrote in his 44-year-old book, Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies, the city is so multifaceted. Banham saw his four ecologies—the hills, the flatlands of the coastal plain, the beaches, and the freeways—as being so disparate that there was no shared narrative about the place.

“Los Angeles does not get the attention it deserves,” Banham wrote. “It gets attention, but it’s like the attention that Sodom and Gomorrah have received, primarily a reflection of other people’s bad consciences.” Could it be we have finally matured as a city so that we are no longer seeing reflections, but a new urban reality?

Today, it can feel as if different generations are living in very different LAs. While older residents cling to suburban neighborhoods, young people are living more urbanized lives, with Lyft and Uber and Metro trains coexisting with fusion restaurants and food trucks. Downtown Los Angeles loft-dwellers—a species that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago—walk their dogs, zip around via our expanding transit system, and enjoy a thriving culinary scene that’s nationally—and internationally—recognized as one of the most vibrant anywhere.

I’m not young anymore, but I appreciate how this newer metropolis allows me to live in Valley Village, an increasingly urban environment near Studio City and North Hollywood that is less dependent on the automobile, and that has more to offer as a result.

From my San Fernando Valley neighborhood, I take the Metro Red Line to my office in downtown Los Angeles’ Historic Core, getting to work faster than I did driving surface streets from where I previously lived in the Miracle Mile. I walk to my local grocery store, the dry cleaners, and my daughter’s elementary school.

I’m also within walking distance of the Los Angeles River Recreation Path, and I’m about a six-minute drive from hiking trails maintained by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. Another two minutes in the car (yes, I own and use a car) and I can take Parker, our family’s terrier mix, to one of the city’s largest dog parks. And I’m comfortably within the delivery radius of a brand new restaurant that’s easily the best Thai food I’ve ever had. (Measure S would have been smart to exclude ethnic restaurants from its building moratorium, don’t you think?)

To be sure, my neighborhood has all the plagues that Measure S supporters worry about: traffic, police and ambulance sirens, and, yes, noise from construction sites building much-needed housing. But on the whole, I feel fortunate to live in a place where I’m not stuck in the backyard. I feel connected to the city, literally and figuratively.

For me, that’s progress. And the moment we realize that we are a metropolis, restrictions like those proposed by Measure S will be seen as a relic, too.

(David Gershwin is a Los Angeles-based public affairs consultant, Zócalo Public Square board member, and teaching fellow at UCLA Anderson School of Business. This perspective was posted originally at Zocalo Public Square.) Photo by Reed Saxon/Associated Press.

-cw 

TRANSIT IN TRANSITION--In case you haven’t noticed, as the city has increased the density in the Basin Los Angeles traffic has become much worse. According to the measures used by Inrix’s 2017 Traffic scorecard, on a worldwide basis, Los Angeles now has the worst traffic gridlock in the world. 

Tom Tom places Los Angeles as fourth worse and in some ways, Tom Tom is more useful. Each urban area with worse traffic congestion than Los Angeles has more density, so it is clear that making LA Basin more dense will make LA’s traffic worse. 

Traffic congestion makes cars more popular. 

As Judge Allan Goodman ruled in January 2014, Garcetti uses Lies and Myths to deceive the public. (The judge’s actual legalese was “fatally flawed data, wishful thinking that subverts the law.”) Thus, the claim that making LA denser will reduce traffic congestion is the opposite of the truth. Kellyanne Conway is envious that Garcetti can spew forth Alt-Fact after Alt-Fact and never get caught. He succeeds where Kellyanne failed because Garcetti only has to deal with the LA Times which has been in the Alt-Fact business since its inception. 

One huge Alt-Fact is that people will use the subways if the city makes traffic unbearable. Our traffic congestion has become the worst in the world, yet cars more popular than ever. The use of mass transit has been decreasing since 1985. Although the Expo Line ran service to Santa Monica and the Gold Line went to Azusa in 2015, usage between 2015 and 2016 fell. People were fooled into voting $200 billion for mass transit because the vast majority of voters expected that others will use the buses and subways, thus making the streets and freeways clearer for them. 

Transit usage fell because increased density which created worse traffic congestion makes cars more popular. So we are experiencing the obvious: more density in the Basin attracting more people into the Basin, increasing traffic congestion, causing more people to use their cars. 

We love our cars for good reason. 

(1) The Metro is slow. 

Metro ignores the time it takes a commuter to get from his home to the train or subway station and the time it takes to walk to his destination. A car starts at one’s home and ends up at most destinations. Even if the office is in DTLA, the person may have to park and walk a couple blocks, it takes 27.9 minutes for a one way commute by car and 52.2 minutes by rail, so a car is much faster. 

(2) The Metro does not go where people need to go. 

Using car, 43.3% of people can reach work within 30 minutes, while only 0.7% can reach work in 30 minutes via transit. The reality is that the overwhelming number of jobs are not reasonable accessibly via transit. 

(3) Cars are more comfortable. 

Not only is a car almost twice as fast as transit, cars are much more comfortable. Taking a subway or a bus means dealing with the weather. Although LA generally has nice weather, people do not like to be rained on or to have to walk an extra half mile in 90 degree heat. Also, the car’s driver seat can be adjusted to fit perfectly; and with a car, there’s no need to stand inside a crowded transit bus or subway car. 

(4) Cars are more convenient. 

Cars are the most flexible mode of transportation, making side trips easier. The subway will not change its route to take you to Ralphs or the cleaners on your way home from work. And a car lets you carry a lot of stuff. Getting off a bus to go to Ralphs, then walking back to board another bus, you are is limited as to what can be carried. It’s not realistic to carry a 50 lb. bag of dog food on the subway or bus; with a car, you can load in 200 lbs. of dog food and four bags of groceries plus stop at the cleaners. Anyway, buying the largest bag of something like dog food is generally cheaper. So grocery shopping is overall cheaper when you can load up your car with a few hundred pounds of goodies. It’s also easier to snack on those cookies on the way home. 

(5) Most cars will be electric. 

Within the foreseeable future, most cars will be electric. While short-term auto emissions are a problem for people who walk or ride bicycles along major thoroughfares, long range planners have to realize that cars will not be polluting the city as much within ten years. Thus, the ecological bias against cars will disappear. 

(6) Cars will become self-driving. 

At some time in the future, cars will become self-driving. This means that commuters will be free to do other things than pay attention to the road. People will be able to work on their computers and have video conferences with others around the world while driving to work. Of course, a huge portion of physical commuting will already have been replaced by Virtual Presence aka Cisco type Telepresence ©. Planners will need to work out the future interactions between physical transportation and virtual transportation. 

(7) Advances in automobile technology will make homes less expensive. 

When electric, self-driving cars are combined with Virtual Presence, homes will become less expensive. Virtual Presence will reduce the need to physically leave the home which will reduce traffic, and at the same time, self-driving cars will allow passengers to do things other than drive. As a result, the annoyance factor of traffic congestion will disappear. The experience of driving is much different on a stop ‘n go bumper-to-bumper freeway where you have to be alert every second than it is in a situation where you can watch the evening news and not even notice a slowdown in traffic. 

When you combine the impact of self-driving cars and Virtual Presence, people can live farther apart. Yes, we can return to sprawl — and sprawl is the key to decent housing at a decent price. Homes are always less expensive and usually more spacious on the periphery. 

Our wonderful, fantastic love affairs with cars. 

Our love affair with the cars is unlike other love affairs – it is based in reality. Cars may be the greatest invention of mankind, and there is every reason to believe that our passion for cars will only deepen in the future. A city that makes itself car unfriendly will have made itself inhospitable to human beings.

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