LOS ANGELES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other reforms worth considering:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-cw

THE NELSON RISING METHOD--What do we do now, Nelson Rising?

I pose that question not just because this is a confusing and complicated era for California. And not just because no living Californian is better than Nelson Rising—a developer, lawyer, campaign manager, and civic leader from Los Angeles—at navigating our state’s complexities to create communities that endure.

“What do we do now?” is the question that concludes Rising’s one-and-only brush with Hollywood. After Rising ran the successful 1970 U.S. Senate campaign of John Tunney, he was a producer on the 1972 film The Candidate, in which Robert Redford plays an idealistic U.S. Senate candidate corrupted by the political process. When Redford wins an upset victory, he is so empty that in the final scene, he asks his campaign manager, “What do we do now?” The manager has no answer.

Fortunately, Rising, 75, has some reassuring answers about today’s California, as I learned during two recent long conversations. And if you’re a reader who doesn’t know the name Nelson Rising, don’t worry—that’s the point. Nelson Rising’s story is about all the big things you can get done in California if you’re willing to listen more than you talk. Over the years his impressive accomplishments have spoken for themselves, without much ballyhoo for the man himself.

When you tally up all the big things Rising has helped bring to California, there are simply too many for a short column. You could start with the tallest building in the state, the Library Tower (now the U.S. Bank Tower) in downtown LA. You could throw in Grand Park, LA’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Metropolitan Water District buildings, and the Playa Vista development (now unofficial headquarters of Southern California’s Silicon Beach). You might add San Francisco’s Mission Bay, the largest mixed-use development in that city’s history, and, in San Diego, two mixed-use towers, next to the train station, that were part of the wave that transformed downtown into a thriving residential neighborhood.

But then you’d still be leaving out major developments like Rising’s first big project, Coto de Caza, the quintessential suburban Orange County planned community, made famous through reality television. (“He is to blame for The Real Housewives of Orange County,” says Rising’s son Chris).

And the buildings are just part of his legacy. In LA, Rising managed the mayoral campaign of Tom Bradley, the city’s first African American mayor, who transformed the city into a far more international, educated, and inclusive place. During a stint up north, Rising was chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (where he navigated the disruption of the dot-com bust), chair of the Washington D.C.-based Real Estate Roundtable, chairman of the publicly traded real estate firm Catellus, and chair of the Bay Area Council, a vital business policy group. His sport coats have put the blue in countless blue-ribbon commissions, and he’s led efforts to remake policies on projects as varied as water, redevelopment, and LA’s Grand Avenue.

Rising’s remarkable career stands as a rejoinder to the maddening conventional wisdom of today’s California: that you can’t do big things in our state because everything is too complicated, regulated, and expensive. Any big project requires dealing with too many different constituencies. Who has time to talk with everyone, much less dig into all the details and accommodate all the interests that must be accommodated?

Nelson Rising makes the time.

Which is the secret of success in California. Rising argues that because so few try to do the big, complicated thing, those who are willing to do all the hard work¬—to talk with everybody, to accommodate every opponent, to sweat every detail—can still accomplish great things. In fact, Californians are so used to having their concerns ignored that the act of listening to and working with one’s opposition can be incredibly powerful.

“I enjoy communication, and the best part of communication is listening. Many people don’t do that,” says Rising. “I don’t think I can respond to people unless I know what I’m responding to. So I always start the conversation by asking, ‘What’s your concern? Why don’t you want me to do this development? And if I can figure out a way to solve your concern, will you be supportive of it?’”

Rising’s natural—if quite deliberate—modesty makes this approach particularly effective. In our recent conversations—at his downtown LA office and at the California Club—Rising deflected credit or understated his role, depicting himself as a coordinator of teams that did the real work. Colleagues interjected frequently to say he was being too modest.

But modesty suits the man, who might be the polar opposite of the real estate developer currently occupying the White House. Rising’s parents never attended college; he went from Glendale High to UCLA and later UCLA law school on a scholarship. He’s been married to the same woman for 53 years and lives in La Cañada-Flintridge, far from the fancy Westside precincts favored by other movers and shakers.

He credits his rise to good fortune, good co-workers, and the friendship of Warren Christopher, a colleague at the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers, who brought him into civic and political work, originally through an effort to rebuild the Democratic party after Ronald Reagan defeated Gov. Pat Brown in 1966. “A person cannot be truly accomplished unless they help others to accomplish,” was a Christopher maxim that Rising still recites.

Rising sees his own skill as building teams that help others accomplish, and that accomplishment comes from talking to one’s opponents. That may seem like very old wisdom, but it is revolutionary today, when civic and political contests are often about rallying one’s base of supporters, while discouraging the base of opponents. He says Tom Bradley succeeded because he visited every corner of the city and made a point of engaging people who were inclined to oppose him—over time, the constant reaching out made Angelenos comfortable with him.

There are similar stories of engagement—of embracing conversation and complexity—in Rising’s other successes. He made the Library Tower (and the neighboring Gas Company tower) happen by arranging a complex swap, in which the tower’s builders purchased the air rights to develop above LA’s Central Library, located across the street, and used them to increase the height of the towers. Revenue from the sale helped the library rebuild after a crippling fire.

Rising argues that because so few try to do the big, complicated thing, those who are willing to do all the hard work—to talk with everybody, to accommodate every opponent, to sweat every detail—can still accomplish great things.

Having developed the tallest building in the state, however, did not make Rising self-important. To win approval for the Playa Vista project, he went into living rooms to meet with homeowners in Westchester, who were angry about the vast amounts of multi-unit housing in his plan. He slowly wore down resistance with conversation and with a presentation that used two slide projectors—to show not only the before and after, but also attractive multi-unit housing in places like Savannah and Washington D.C.’s Georgetown neighborhood.

The greatest example of the Rising method may be Mission Bay. As the CEO of the public real estate firm Catellus, he took over a development that faced opposition and remade it to satisfy the complaints of San Franciscans. His moves included adding 1,700 units of affordable housing, providing parking for Giants games, and donating 43 acres to UC San Francisco for their biotech campus. The development was ultimately approved without opposition; there wasn’t a single environmental lawsuit.

The feat was so impressive that San Francisco—a place where throngs chant “Beat L.A.” with little provocation— named a street in Mission Bay after the Los Angeles developer—Nelson Rising Lane. “You can walk all over Nelson Rising,” quips his longtime colleague David Herbst, “but you have to go to San Francisco to do it.”

Rising cops to plenty of failures, including twice flunking attempts at retirement. So now he’s building a business with his son Chris, who is named for Warren Christopher. They are raising a $300 million social impact fund for investments, and are focused on three things: Remaking buildings so they produce less carbon (“We’d like to show the real estate industry it doesn’t have to be the number one generator of carbon,” Chris says); making buildings healthier (with more light and air, and designs that are better for workers); and incorporating technology into older, restored places by taking all the copper out and replacing it with fiber networks. (Their revamping of One Bunker Hill in LA will include a signature public lobby with powerful Wi-Fi that they want schoolchildren to use to do their homework.)

Rising remains loyal to downtown LA, and marvels at how the area, once almost entirely an employment hub, has surpassed all expectations by becoming a place to live. He praises the Wilshire Grand Center that, when it’s completed later this year, will supplant the Library Tower as the state’s tallest building.

Rising still works in the historic Beaux Arts PacMutual complex that he restored and then sold in 2015, reportedly at a record per-square-foot price for a downtown office building. His firm has since purchased 433 S. Spring, an Art Deco building where Rising began his career as an O’Melveny lawyer.

The firm is working in LA, San Diego, and San Francisco, and eyeing Sacramento, where the Risings have been impressed with the growth of its downtown. He is critical of President Trump’s policies, but doesn’t think the new administration will be able to undermine California too much. “The state’s economy is poised to keep exceeding the country,” he says, as long as it keeps nurturing its diversity, raises its education levels, and rebuilds its infrastructure.

So what do we do now, Los Angeles … California? We follow Rising’s singular example: Reach out to one another, listen—and recommit to doing the big things that will make a difference.

(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).)

-cw

ILLOGICAL LIABILITY-Even as editorial boards across the city have been falling all over each other in a race to endorse Eric Garcetti for a second term, the Mayor has been busy sowing the seeds for LA's next budget-busting liability fiasco. 

On Thursday, the Metro Board will vote whether to allocate more than $350 million dollars on Mayor Garcetti's indecent proposal to have an all-overtime LAPD force take over the lion's share of security for the Metro. 

First, only a fool would argue that substantial overtime work does not lead to fatigue, and the question of whether fatigue leads to greater harm -- both to police officers and civilians -- is a settled question. Dr. Bryan Vila an ex-LAPD cop found being tired affects a police officer’s ability to exercise safe judgment, capacity to pay attention, and even certain kinds of fine motor coordination crucial in the handling of firearms and laptop-like devices that are now ubiquitous in patrol cars. Dr. Vila and others have noted that as many police deaths are caused by fatigue-related car accidents as by shootings. 

It doesn't take an ACLU lawyer to see the catastrophic liability for the Metro in sanctioning a policy -- not just the frequent occurrence due to unforeseen circumstances, but an actual, premeditated policy -- of an all-overtime force. How long will it take before one of those all-overtime officers ends up – whether justified or not -- shooting a passenger or inadvertently tasing them onto the tracks? 

Already, if a cop is on overtime when a shooting occurs, the liability is increased. But when the whole force is on O.T. -- sanctioned by a room full of virtually every powerful local elected official, including the Mayor and all five members of the County Board of Supervisors -- the taxpayer pays the price.  

None of this is to underplay the problem of declining Metro ridership or the need for more safety officers. Though improving as of late, the Sheriff's performance has been insufficient, but a viable solution is right before us. The Sheriff's department has already made successful use of private security firms which, among other advantages, cost about half as much. The advantage of those savings in this case is that the Metro could hire double the number of security personnel -- and those are jobs for Angelenos -- which would in turn make it possible for many of the buses to have a dedicated security presence on board. 

Regardless, the Metro board owes it to the public to vote down Mayor Garcetti's ultimately self-serving proposal. 

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

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW--Since his first day in office, Trump and his team have fired off a series of Executive Orders, including aggressive immigration policies. His Day 6 “Border Security and Immigration Improvements” order would forward construction of the 1,900 mile long wall along the southern border and beefing up border protection forces.

Also on Day 6, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” called for deporting undocumented immigrants, tripling resources for enforcement, and targeting sanctuary cities by withholding federal funding.

Just one day later, Trump signed an order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” preventing all refugees from entering the country for 120 days – and putting a three-month halt to immigrants from seven Muslim majority countries. After the Ninth Circuit blocked his travel ban, Trump plans to issue a new executive order this week.

In the meantime, the administration’s actions, particularly the travel restrictions, have been worrisome to those in LA’s international travel and tourism industries, which contribute significantly to the county’s economy. In 2015, tourism brought in over $20 Billion to Los Angeles County – along with seven million international visitors.

Last week, President and CEO, Los Angeles Tourism & Convention Board Ernest Wooden Jr. went on record that while the board “recognizes and supports the need for travel security, these Executive Orders are an affront to Los Angeles, where residents from more than 180 countries call home.”

In a letter to stakeholders, Wooden wrote:

Further, they are antiethical to the role travel plays in our society. Despite barriers which governments, religions, political beliefs and economics can seemingly build, travel plays a crucial role in bringing us all together. Tourism fosters understanding between people and cultures and increases the chances for people to develop mutual sympathy and understanding – perhaps even to reduce prejudices.

To ensure we understand the impact that the recent Executive Orders and current political climate may have on our business, we asked Tourism Economics, an independent research partner, to re-evaluate our forecast.

They project that LA County could suffer a potential three-year loss of 800,000 international visitors as a direct result of President Trump’s Executive Orders. These visitors typically spend $920 each while in LA, totaling a potential loss of $736 million in direct tourism spending.

This loss would be significant for our local businesses and families employed by the hospitality industry, which is one of the largest and healthiest job sectors in LA County.

Danny Roman of Bikes and Hikes LA has already seen a drop in international reservations for this coming summer by worried tourists who are delaying or cancelling trips to the U.S. Roman, who is on the Board of the City of West Hollywood and is involved with LA Tourism, as well as promoting tourism in West Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica, says, “We’ve actually started to see the impact in our company. We usually have tons of summer bookings way in advance. We’ve had over twenty cancellations already. When we’ve inquired why, people have said they’re cancelling trips to California or the west coast because they aren’t really sure what’s happening in our government. We’ve had cancellations from Sydney, Melbourne, London, Paris, Canada, Germany and Nordic countries. People are telling us they’re cancelling their entire trip. They aren’t coming to US because everything seems out of whack.”

Roman shares he recently returned from visiting remote villages in Africa where he says many of the residents had never seen a cellphone photo of themselves but “knew about Trump and what was going on. People are talking about this all over the world and it’s on every front page of every newspaper in almost every country of the world.”

“We don’t have very many bookings from states that were banned but Beverly Hills does business with countries directly affected because of the ban. Beverly Hills is a popular destination for wealthy middle eastern visitors who are worried,” adds Roman. 

The travel business is vital for people in LA and the fact that this guy is screwing around is definitely hurting our business. We’re a little mom and pop. It’s very scary,” says Roman, who is concerned that travel will be impacted similarly to after 9/11 when nobody was traveling to the States. “I’m hoping for the best but preparing for the worst.”

(Beth Cone Kramer is a Los Angeles writer and a columnist for CityWatch.)

-cw

MEOW MIX-Last Thursday, February 16, 2017, two cars were swallowed up in a giant sinkhole in Laurel Canyon Boulevard in Studio City. Many were shocked that a huge sinkhole could appear from nowhere. People were flummoxed. Others were frightened about where the next one would appear. Would they be next? 

While some opine that sudden sinkholes are caused by the rain or by saturated soil, the real cause is our love affair with simplistic Alt-Facts. After cat videos, the number one interest of Angelenos seems to be Alt-Facts or No Facts at All. 

Alt-Facts have received more attention since Kellyanne Conway gathered together all the BS, lies, myths and Breitbartisms and put them under one label: “Alternative Facts.” That has become shortened to Alt-Facts to correspond with Alt-Right and Alt-Left. Oh, yes sir, the Alt-Left loves Alt-Facts and always has. That’s why Trumpsters think they’re entitled to their Alt-Facts. 

First we need to understand that since November 8, 2016, only Alt-Facts are allowed and all other facts, what we used to call reality, are discarded. Here are three tests for deciding if a “Proposed Fact” qualifies as an Alt-Fact: 

Test #1 

The first test for an Alt-Fact is whether it emotionally satisfies the reader. This test is similar to cat videos; we watch them because they make us feel good. That is the first job of an Alt-Fact: feeling good. If a proposed fact does not make the listener feel good, it gets dumped into the Fake News file.   

Test #2 

The second test for an Alt-fact is whether it makes one think. If a proposed fact requires thinking, it is discarded as if it never existed. 

Angelenos have been told for over ten years that the City’s infrastructure is crumbling, but that is not a fact to Angelenos. It is not emotionally satisfying like a cat video and it does require asking questions like, “What is infrastructure?” Much easier to shift one’s attention: “Oh look, some puppy dog videos to go with the cat videos.” 

Test #3 

The third test for an Alt-Fact is whether it requires a person to do something other than feel morally outraged. A crumbling infrastructure fails this test. If people took the time to understand what the word infrastructure even meant, they would realize that they should do something – yes, before another huge sinkhole opens and swallows up more cars. Any information that requires a prolonged course of action such as gathering more information, undertaking studies and assessing how much money it would cost and the marginal efficiency of capital for a given project is deleted from the minds of Angelenos. 

Steven (Breitbart) Bannon has adopted the LA mode to deal with fact-based reality: “Largest crowds ever…facts are bad…the media is the enemy of the American people.” 

The Beavis and Butt-Head mentality that engulfs Los Angeles considers cars falling into sinkholes as “really cool.” Yes, and they are giggling about sink sounding like “stink” and we know what the word “holes” means to them. Now they’re Googling “cars in stink holes.” 

We live in a city where water mains burst about three times a week, but we ignore this because bursting water mains are not emotionally satisfying. When news reporters refer to that terrible word “infrastructure” and ask why the mains are busting, it requires thinking. Same goes with all the other signs that LA is becoming a “loser city” -- complete with constant soothing suggestions that everything is okay … no need to worry … no need to think. 

Remember back before the Crash of 2008 when some people tried to explain that rising housing prices was not a good sign? “BORING! Show me more cat videos.”

In this climate, it is no wonder that no one is running against Garcetti for Mayor. Sure, some people placed their names on the ballot, but they are not actually running. One dufus made the point that Garcetti should promise to serve a “full 5 and ½ years.” Why didn’t he just offer to give all his votes to Garcetti? 

We live in a city that’s been controlled by the Beavis and Butt-Head mentality for years. And it is not going to change for the simple reason that the non-Beavis and Butt-Head people are leaving Los Angeles. Those who remain will find more and more busted water mains, sinkholes swallowing cars, billions more missing from City Hall, fewer paramedics, more police shootings and higher crime rates…but they’ll still have their cat videos. 

As Alfred E. Newman said, “What, me worry?”

(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.

CALBUZZ EXCLOO--Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration, alarmed by a report of a draft plan to mobilize 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, has quietly concluded that the Trump White House legally cannot take command of California’s National Guard short of declaring immigration to be an “invasion.”

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Friday said the report by the Associated Press about plans to dragoon the Guard was “100% not true. It is false. It is irresponsible to be saying this. There is no effort at all to round up, to utilize the National Guard to round up illegal immigrants.” 

Of course, Trump famously told Fox News bromance buddy Bill O’Reilly recently that California is “out of control” on immigration. So even the suggestion that Trump might try to seize command of the California National Guard was disturbing enough to cause Brown legal advisers to analyze the state’s options, should Trump seek to activate the Guard as a deportation force.

Don't Tread on Me. In the normal course of events (how fondly and wistfully we remember such bygone days) National Guard troops are under the command of the governor of each state.

At the same time, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prevents the use of federal armed forces (except the Coast Guard) for peacetime law enforcement within the United States. And under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, the president can only call up the National Guard for active duty for a congressionally sanctioned national emergency or war.

Moreover, according to a high-ranking source in the Brown administration, Trump “would have to get the consent of the governor” – something Brown would not provide.

While Brown has not spoken on the issue directly, at least three Republican governors, in Utah, Arkansas and Nevada, have objected to the suggestion that their National Guard troops should be used as a deportation force.

Under federal law, whenever:

(1) The United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;

(2) There is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or

(3) The President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

Stay Off Our Lawn! California officials thereby have concluded that the state cannot be compelled to use its police or military forces for law enforcement purposes;  in their analysis, controlling immigration is a federal responsibility, not a matter for state or local law enforcement.

On the other hand, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly last week signed new guidelines empowering federal authorities to aggressively detain and deport unauthorized immigrants.

“The surge of immigration at the southern border has overwhelmed federal agencies and resources and has created a significant national security vulnerability to the United States,” Kelly stated in the guidelines.

According to the Washington Post, Kelly cited a surge of 10,000 to 15,000 additional apprehensions per month at the southern U.S. border between 2015 and 2016.

Gov. Brown’s lawyers don’t believe that rationale would hold up in court as an “invasion” justifying federalizing the Guard. And without consent of the governor, they have concluded, Trump cannot deploy California National Guard troops as a border-control or deportation force.

By now, of course, we’d be surprised by exactly nothing that President Screw Loose might attempt to do.

(Jerry Roberts is a California journalist who writes, blogs and hosts a TV talk show about politics, policy and media. Phil Trounstine is the former political editor of the San Jose Mercury News, former communications director for California Gov. Gray Davis and was the founder and director of the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University. This piece appeared originally in CalBuzz.)

-cw

@THE GUSS REPORT-All manner of emergencies arose during Friday’s torrential rainstorm, including car-swallowing sinkholes, swift-water rescues and downed power lines. Many, perhaps most, were unpredictable. 

But shortly after Friday’s remarkably brief City Council meeting adjourned, in which half of the chatter was ceremonial, one of those emergency situations turned deadly in Sherman Oaks when a massive tree was ripped from its sidewalk, crushing nearby parked cars and taking down power lines that charged flooding water and electrocuted a 55-year old man. 

But according to a local tree trimmer who came by the scene early on Saturday morning, his company gave the City of Los Angeles ample and repeated warnings about the dangerous conditions that led to the man’s death. Some of these warnings, the man reportedly told neighbors, were in writing. In a KNBC report that aired late on Friday, several neighbors said that they too warned the city about the tree. 

While the address in front of which the deadly incident took place is technically on N. Sepulveda Boulevard, this Google Maps photo from the west side of the street shows that the massive tree towering over adjacent power lines was located on the east side curb of a service road immediately east of Sepulveda Blvd. 

The tree was so immense that by the time it was flattened, it tore through its own sidewalk, the service road and its two parking lanes, a wide median, another parking lane and onto the wider portion of Sepulveda Boulevard. 

Neighbors say the tree trimmer pointed to the trees he claims to have recently pruned directly across the street, advising that the city knew the collapsed tree should have been similarly reduced or removed altogether, but did nothing. 

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, whose TV commercials asking Angelenos for another term in the upcoming March primary are currently flooding the airwaves, originally ran on being a “back to basics” mayor. He has repeatedly banged that drum – despite continuous fails of that promise – throughout his term, giving that responsibility in 2015 to his oft-overwhelmed deputy Barbara Romero. This LA Times article announcing her appointment coincided with Garcetti’s launch of his re-election fundraising. (Romero did not reply to a Sunday morning request to field questions.)   

One of Garcetti’s leading challengers in the March primary, Mitchell Schwartz, says Garcetti is doing much better at his campaign fundraising than he is at delivering those core services to the constituents. “Our ‘back to basics’ Mayor has not delivered improvement on these basic quality of life issues,” he said. “Our pensions now consume 20% of the budget, taking money from other needed services. Instead of traveling to raise money for his current and future campaigns, perhaps Mr. Garcetti should spend a little more time in the city addressing the pressing concerns of residents.” 

In the meantime, four blocks away from the scene of Friday's deadly tree collapse two other massive trees are severely pressing through the sidewalk of an oversized McMansion similar to the one I described in a recent CityWatch article as the city's most hideous.

Whether Garcetti, Romero and the LA City Council do anything about them (or the scores of others endangering the city) in advance of another deadly tragedy remains to be seen.

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

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-My support for Measure S did not just drop off a turnip truck. It is based on my long career as a city planner. This includes positions in two large urban planning departments, a private planning firm, a small non-profit, and a large non-profit. In addition, I have worked as an independent consultant, taught planning courses at three local universities, and written many articles on city planning topics, mostly Los Angeles. 

Three lessons from these assignments lead me to support the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, now called Measure S. Over the past year my support has only grown stronger when I encountered so many half-truths and flat-out lies mounted against Measure S. In fact, I recently learned that the big real estate firms funding the No on S campaign hired Parke Skelton’s and Michael Shiplock’s SG&A campaign firm. Their goal? To defeat this voter Initiative by any means necessary, which is the source, I assume, of the disinformation campaign now at large in LA. 

These are the three reasons why I have consistently supported the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative/Measure S: 

• Competent governance of a massive metropolitan area.
• Government transparency in land use decisions.
• Certainty for local communities and businesses. 

1. Competent governance of a massive metropolitan area. 

Los Angeles is a big, sprawling, complex city in an even larger, complex metropolitan area. The city has nearly 4,000,000 people, the region has over 12,000,000 people, and there are even more visitors and employees. It has the largest and most congested street system of any American city. For these and many related reasons, such as climate change, LA desperately needs to be well governed, and this is only possible with a strong, timely General Plan that is carefully prepared and adopted, then implemented, adhered to, regularly monitored and updated. LA’s alternative model, of muddling through by riding the erratic booms and busts of speculative real estate cycles, is simply not up to the task. Infrastructure and services slowly fail, at least until the Big One ushers in systemic failure to most infrastructure and service systems. As for the rest of the built environment, such as housing, it becomes disconnected from the public’s need (and right!) for shelter. 

Without a clear understanding and blueprint for Los Angeles that is meticulously prepared, regularly monitored, and periodically updated, an unplanned Los Angeles will never be properly governed. In fact, the messy, corrupt real estate-driven model that now dominates LA’s City Hall is not based on any systematic planning at all. It just muddles through, lurching to and fro, dealing with major social and environmental problems like homelessness, gridlock, and air pollution, with election year clichés and short-term fixes. 

2. Government transparency in land use decisions. 

The planning process is politically charged. If done correctly, it is based on extensive community participation in formulating plans, and then reviewing deviations from these plans. These tasks should all be out in the open, with total transparency. Nothing should be decided in back corridors and behind closed doors, with a special role carved out for lobbyists and campaign donors. 

But, from LA’s earliest days to the present, the default planning model has been wheeling and dealing, what the LA Times now politely calls “soft corruption.” But, it is really much worse since it turns on pay-to-play. Real estate investors pay off politicians to get the land use approvals they need for their otherwise illegal projects. There is not much that is new about all of these backroom deals, except for the spotlight shined on it by Measure S and Los Angeles Times investigative reporting. 

From the 19^th century until the 1970s, pay-to-play meant the transformation of raw land, mostly agricultural, through low-density housing and strip malls. This transformation took place in Los Angeles and smaller cities between the ocean and Western Ave., as well as the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys. Since the 1970s, City Hall’s back room deals changed to become mostly urban in-fill. This presents itself as the redevelopment of existing building sites with larger, more expensive structures. It takes the form of McMansions, Small Lot Subdivisions, and the controversial mega-projects that require special City Council parcel-specific ordinances, mostly spot-zone changes, to become legal. 

In short, pay-to-play has become the handmaiden of unplanned, market-driven urban infill. The consequences, though, are more devastating than the previous suburban model because of the systematic loss of affordable housing through demolitions, displacement, dislocation, and gentrification. In broad terms, the market forces celebrated at City Hall – and even in some university planning programs -- lead to the replacement of lower priced housing with more expensive housing in order to maximize real estate profits. The situation has become so bad that those who can only afford middle income and lower priced housing turn to cheaper housing in far flung exurban areas, like Palmdale and Moreno Valley. This move, unfortunately, is highly unsustainable because it necessitates long commutes, mostly in cars.   

As for those who choose or are forced to remain in Los Angeles, their reality has become homelessness, overcrowding, and unsafe housing in illegally converted garages. Furthermore, LA’s local housing crisis has worsened through the bi-partisan elimination of most Federal HUD housing programs, as well as the dissolution of the Community Redevelopment Agency. These public programs to build or subsidize affordable housing have become historical footnotes. 

The bottom line is that City Hall’s pay-to-play has led to two bad planning outcomes. The first was urban sprawl and low-density development. The second, when the raw land ran out, is unplanned and poorly planned urban infill driven by profit maximization. These two urban forms appear to be different on the outside, but at City Hall the transition was seamless. Real estate interests funded campaigns in order to get what they needed for their short-terms gains, whether it was tract housing in the immediate post WWII era or high-rise luxury condo projects replacing older, low-rise, commercial buildings in the 21^st century. 

3. Certainty for local communities and businesses. 

General Plans, including their mandatory and optional chapters (Elements) and their implementation through a range of zoning ordinances, including specific plans, are only useful when they are followed. If the City Planning Department, the City Planning Commission, and City Council allow these carefully prepared plans and zones to be cast aside by any developer with deep pockets, the plans become irrelevant. The certainty they provide to all parties is discarded, and the adopted plans quickly become shelf documents. They play little or no role in land use decisions, which consist of City Hall welcoming nearly all speculative real estate projects that knock of their door. Since City Hall approves over 90 percent of such in-fill projects, usually with spot-zoning, this is LA’s real land use decision making process. It is totally arbitrary, with all certainty eliminated. 

In contrast, through Measure S we know that LA’s General Plan, including the Community Plans that comprise its required Land Use Element, will be quickly and regularly updated. We also know that this Update process requires extensive community input at all stages, based on open meetings held on weekends and in evening in local communities. 

We further know that any effort to circumvent the updated General Plan must conform to the rigorous legal findings spelled out in the City Charter, as clarified by Measure S. These criteria include limiting General Plan Amendments to Community Plan areas, Specific Plan areas, or collections of parcels at least 15 acres in size. Finally, we know that any efforts to undo these adopted plans will force developers to use EIR consultants selected by the City of Los Angeles. They can no longer rely on their hand-picked consultants. 

In short, Measure S ensures that the land use decision-making process is based on certainty. LA’s current reality, that your neighborhood’s planning and zoning can be pulled out from underneath your feet by City Hall backroom deals, will finally end. 

Coming in my next column: The components of the high quality planning process that Yes on S will usher in. Stay tuned.

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

RESISTANCE---Right now, the most effective political action we can take is local. Not Congressional District local: school board local, state house local, city council local, neighborhood council local, #Indivisible group local!

There’s an election in Los Angeles on March 7. Absentee ballots are long out. For many of us, there’s only one item upon which to vote in this election. My La Crescenta ballot has Measure H on it and that’s it. 

(We voted yes!)

Perhaps the most significant local decision for the people of the City of Los Angeles is Measure S.

From two writers I hold in great esteem, Damian Carroll writes the No on S argument in the form of a sonnet and my friend John White replies with the Yes on S argument in fine haiku form: 

NO ON S:

The Measure S proponents aren't wrong:
The City's planning process is a mess
But this proposal takes a tack too strong
And hurts our plans to combat homelessness
We can't afford a two-year building freeze
Our need for housing's sorely overdue
(What's more, the measure's author is a sleaze -
He's trying to stop a tower that blocks his view)
The measure's backers want to take away
Discretion from the leaders we elect
And give more power to the folks who say
Their parking's most important to protect
I get that growing neighborhoods is hard
But we must get past "Not in my back yard."

-- Damian Carroll

YES ON S:

Mansions have their place
Speculator greed, excess
Jam them in small lots

Opponents scream, yell
Recession! Poor homeless rubes!
Their squeals are untrue

-- John White

CityWatch LA has invited all local campaigns, candidates, initiatives, and charter amendment campaigns to submit free video space on our well-visited public Great LA Election 2017 OnLine Debate page. If your candidate or position isn’t up yet, please nudge them to get me a YouTube link. It’s an effort in progress and we’ve been greatly helped by feedback (Thanks Eric! Thanks David S.!) so please continue to help us make this better, more useful, more leveling of the local field. Email me your video!

Me? I’m totally inspired by the national Indivisible movement and urge every single everyone to download the guide! There are two Indivisible groups organizing in La Crescenta! Two! Now is the time to pay attention and get involved!

Find your own way to participate. There are many great guides out there, like this good one from The Nation: Your Guide ... to the Resistance Movement And check out this amazing compilation of local meetings, nationwide from the Town Hall Project. 

Fill out your ballot now if you’ve got it handy! And look for me out in the streets!

(Julie Butcher writes for CityWatch, is a retired union leader and is now enjoying her new La Crescenta home and her first grandchild. She can be reached at [email protected] or on her new blog ‘The Butcher Shop - No Bones about It.’) 

-cw

GUEST COMMENTARY-The Coalition for Economic Survival (CES) believes Measure S threatens to delay or stop projects that would otherwise provide affordable housing, and housing for homeless people.

Measure S puts a two-year moratorium on development projects requiring certain zoning or height exemptions, and permanently prohibits developments requiring a General Plan amendment. Thus it could stop projects that would provide permanent supportive housing for people who are homeless -- housing that voters approved with the passage of Measure HHH last November.          

Clearly, there is a great need for government action to protect neighborhoods and much more action is needed to preserve our existing rent-controlled and affordable housing stock. In fact, this lack of action at City Hall, no doubt, opened the door for Measure S to make it to the ballot.

Measure S does have some good provisions. The City should be updating community plans. Obviously, in response to Measure S, the City Council just voted to back an effort to update community plans more frequently.

Additionally, developers should not be allowed to select environmental impact report consultants for their projects.

But, it is our belief that Measure S is a sledgehammer approach that does not provide a solution. In fact, it may make matters worse. 

Measure S is not the answer and should be voted down. 

Measure S … 

• Does Not Stop Ellis Act evictions. 

• Does Not Stop condo conversions. 

• Does Not Stop rent-controlled housing from being demolished. In fact, it may incentivize more destruction of rent-controlled buildings. 

• Does Not Create new affordable housing. 

• Does Not Stop big developers from donating to elected officials.

Measure S DOES Stop Affordable Housing from being built. 

CES believes that Measure S would provide an incentive to developers to destroy more rent- controlled buildings. 

A two year moratorium on development targeted in Measure S could steer developers towards other types of development such as more demolitions and conversions of rent-controlled housing to condos resulting in further displacement of low and moderate income renters.

The Measure S moratorium, and its permanent prohibition on the City's ability to issue General Plan amendments, will be stop the building of affordable housing. Although the backers of Measure S claim to exempt affordable housing, Measure S does not actually exempt all 100% affordable housing projects from its reach, and would effectively stop 90% of city-sponsored affordable housing projects.

It is for these reasons CES Urges You to Vote NO on Measure S!

(Larry Gross is the Executive Director of the Coalition for Economic Survival and a CityWatch contributor.) Edited for City Watch by Linda Abrams.

DEEGAN ON LA-What had seemed to be a done deal, subject to City Council approval, is now being treated by Councilmember David Ryu (CD4) like some speculative notion that could be up for review and possible re-litigation. (Photo above: Councilman David Ryu.) 

The creation of a Miracle Mile Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) has already been endorsed by former CD4 Councilmember Tom LaBonge as well as by David Ryu himself, and approved by a vote of the Cultural Heritage Commission and a vote (with alterations) by the Central Planning Commission (CPC). However, Ryu just sent his Miracle Mile constituents a letter requesting a yes or no answer to his question asking if “you support or oppose the HPOZ for your community?” This is his second attempt to “learn” what the community wants. Right after the CPC vote, he met with representatives of the pro and anti HPOZ groups, but reached no consensus with them on boundaries. 

With his new survey of residents, Ryu seems to be asserting that the very idea of a Miracle Mile HPOZ could be open to review by him, as he faces strong pressure from the Say No HPOZ group. He may not be alone in this reconsideration. The Mayor could want him to limit the HPOZ boundaries so that strips of housing between 8th Street and Wilshire that hold hundreds of affordable housing units, and renters protected by the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, are excluded from the HPOZ – making that space available to developers. Then renters could lose their protection and be evicted. 

This sudden community outreach and polling conducted by Ryu feels a little bit late. A more appropriate time to ask the community to weigh in on a survey about how it feels about a HPOZ would have been way before the matter was sent to the Cultural Heritage Commission and the Central Planning Commission. This could have given the councilmember a benchmark to use as defense against latecomers who are now stealing the narrative -- as well as a means to pushback against City Hall, the Mayor and the Central Planning Commission. Instead, Ryu waited to test the waters by polling the community until after he was bombarded by community unrest over the Central Planning Commission’s slaughter of the original HPOZ plans and the appearance of organized protesters telling Ryu they do not want a HPOZ. 

It’s a mess and Ryu (speaking to MMRA meeting photo left) is right in the middle of it. The ground has suddenly shifted from the original dispute about HPOZ boundaries -- that were reset in December by David Ambroz and the Central Planning Commission -- to Ryu now asking the very basic question, “who wants a Miracle Mile HPOZ?” Results of Ryu’s poll will be revealed at a community meeting he has called for February 22, at 7p.m. in the auditorium of John Burroughs Middle School. Both the Miracle Mile Residential Association and Say No HPOZ are mobilizing for what could be a showdown with Ryu, who is now in a tough position. 

The President of the Central Planning Commission, Mayoral appointee and proxy David Ambroz, is the one who threw a monkey wrench into the CPC boundaries debate, causing an uproar until Ryu brought the HPOZ question back to square one. Ambroz played a divisive role in the looming removal of several hundred affordable housing units in the Miracle Mile when he called for two CPC votes on the issue. The first vote, that would have protected affordable housing, was a tie, while the second, after a quick huddle, broke against the affordable housing renters to insure that the Miracle Mile HPOZ boundaries approved by the Cultural Heritage Commission (and previously supported by Ryu) were denied. With that came the abandonment of protection for the renters of affordable housing. 

This is happening at a time when Mayor Garcetti says he is working hard to create more affordable housing. It’s as if the Mayor’s City Hall colleagues Ambroz and Ryu are working against him by not emphatically protecting affordable housing in the Miracle Mile and opening the way for developers of market rate and luxury housing. That is…unless they are working in collusion with him. Ambroz cast his CPC vote against HOPZ protection for those affordable housing renters, and then organized the second vote to seal its fate. It’s hard to imagine that a political appointee -- Ambroz is not elected but serves at the pleasure of the Mayor -- would vote contrary to his patron’s wishes. 

Ambroz, a Disney executive when not at City Hall, appears to be a Garcetti favorite who is now enjoying his second Mayoral appointment. He has just been named as a Commissioner on the citizen review board overseeing Prop H funds should this ballot measure to help the homeless be approved by voters on March 7. 

The affordable housing issue is center-stage for Ryu now that he threw his own monkey wrench into the Miracle Mile HPOZ debate last week, questioning constituents about having a historic preservation overlay zone (HPOZ) for the neighborhood. 

Residents are circulating a petition demanding “that the areas excluded by the City Planning

Commission from the original boundaries of the Miracle Mile Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) as approved by the Cultural Heritage Commission and endorsed by Mid City West Community Council be reinstated into the HPOZ.” This would require Ryu to unequivocally state that he is for the Miracle Mile HPOZ in its original incarnation, with restoration of the sections eliminated by the CPC. He’ll need to stick his neck out to get some support from council colleagues to overturn the CPC vote. By reaching backwards now to poll the community, Ryu has created a vacuum into which developers have rushed. They sense that the wedge he’s created will enable them to get what they want: less restriction and more freedom to control land use for their own benefit. 

“Is David Ryu, barring some possible compromise by him, really ready to back a residential homeowners and tenants group that, I believe, has lost such credibility and has morphed into utilizing the HPOZ status for tenant's advocacy, not neighborhood protection?" asked Henry van Moyland, a Miracle Mile homeowner for the past two years and one of the most vocal leaders of the Say No HPOZ group. 

"They have abused the process by using a HPOZ as a device to promote affordable housing through the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. There is no justification for HPOZ status, either politically by Ryu or from a preservation standpoint for the community. It’s better to switch all houses in the zone to one of the new R-1 variations. That designation does everything necessary to stop McMansions, which was the original intent of creating the HPOZ." 

Miracle Mile resident and real estate businessman Jay Evan Schoenfeldt, founder of Say No HPOZ, adds to his partner’s theme, stating, “Rent stabilization is not the same as affordable housing. There is no income qualification to occupy a rent stabilized apartment. Residents can stay in a rent-restricted rent stabilized unit for decades even though their household income may have grown, while affordable housing uses a household’s gross income as a qualifying factor to live in the unit. Rent stabilization is a public policy issue and should not have anything to do with whether a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) exists or does not exist. In fact, including that in the equation undermines the entire principle of a historic zone.”

Ryu has his work cut out for him in clarifying his position on the HPOZ and gaining credibility among the warring factions -- the Miracle Mile Residential Association that wants the HPOZ and the Say No HPOZ group that does not. 

No side seems to be happy, not the pro-HPOZ, not the anti-HPOZ groups, not the renters who may lose affordable housing, and not David Ryu, who may have been thrust into the middle of this mess by the Mayor. It looks like nobody is going to come out of this in one piece. And all parties, except the Mayor and the developers, may come out losers.

(Tim Deegan is a long-time resident and community leader in the Miracle Mile, who has served as board chair at the Mid City West Community Council and on the board of the Miracle Mile Civic Coalition. Tim can be reached at [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

GELFAND’S WORLD--The local chapter of Indivisible met last week. As you may recall, this is the grass roots reaction to the Trump administration and the new congress. Apparently, the San Pedro locals started with a few people getting together in a living room just a week or two ago. They decided to go public immediately rather than wait around. The time and place of the meeting was spread largely by word of mouth, which is how I found out about it. But suddenly, there we were, a standing room only session running into the better part of sixty or seventy people. At the meeting, word spread that there are now nearly 6000 such groups spread around the country. 

The big question on people's minds is simple. The group is developing in numbers and organization, so what should people do now? There obviously are hundreds of thousands of activists who are flocking to these meetings, and probably millions more who are beginners at activism but nevertheless strongly motivated and energized. How to put this to effective use? 

The guideline proposed by the originators is to form local groups which are dedicated to opposing what the Trump administration and congress are trying to do. You might say it's a liberal version of Just Say No. This presumably starts with preserving the Affordable Care Act and defending civil rights. As the program of the congressional right wingers starts to coalesce in the form of legislation, there will be other things to oppose. 

The guide book for Indivisible explains that the Tea Party conservatives self-organized and descended en masse on congressional town hall meetings. Such meetings used to be fairly calm -- what will the government do about farm price supports and the like -- but suddenly the congressmen were getting an earful. And it was loud, and often enough, not very civil. The Indivisible guidebook does not propose that people be uncivil, but it does suggest that they show up and make their feelings known. 

As Woody Allen pointed out, eighty percent of life is showing up, and that is what has been happening. We are starting to hear of an increasing number of confrontations between worried citizens and the congressmen who nominally represent their interests. A bunch of conservative Republicans are suddenly on the other side of the Tea Party approach. A lot of the discussion, some of it heated, has been about threats to abolish the Affordable Care Act. 

The reason we know this approach has been effective is that the right wing noise machine has been complaining about the behavior of the protesters. When you think back on the Tea Party era, the irony is rich. Those conservatives sure know how to dish it out, but take it? Not so much. 

Breitbart news is even referring to Indivisible as "Soros-linked." This, you have to realize, is actually kind of funny. The right wing used to complain about inferred ties to the Russian government. This no longer being an option, they try to tie their opponents to George Soros. It must be some kind of trigger word for their loyal readers. 

I would like to offer a couple of suggestions regarding where things go from here. 

First, it is obviously important that Indivisible grows in number. It's standard to compare organizational strength to the National Rifle Association. They should make it a goal to grow to at least that size. But it's also important that the resistance to Trump's policies continue to grow outside of the big cities on the two coasts. Therefore, people who are willing to join the opposition should reach out to people who live in political border areas, the places that the news media traditionally refers to as purple (for their near balance of liberals and conservatives). Whether it's relatives or old classmates, online chums or army buddies, it's important for participants to make the effort to bring in at least one or two new people. 

It's also important for the movement as a whole to provide psychological support, as it were, to the hardy folks willing to stick their necks out in the redder areas. It shouldn't be any great surprise that you can't peel people off of one interest group if you don't show them some alternative. 

One measure that seems to be drawing some blood from the congressional Republicans is the telling of truly emotional stories by those who have found improved health and better medical coverage due to the Affordable Care Act. The collection and spreading of such stories is an important message in and of itself, but also adds to the political strength of the movement. 

The need to preserve Medicare is another story that should be spread far and wide. You would think that there wouldn't be any need, what with Medicare traditionally being considered a third rail in American politics along with Social Security. But congressional Republicans have already broadcast their intent to do damage to both of these programs. It's time for Indivisible participants to shout out the danger. 

Back in 1964, John A. Stormer published his book None Dare Call it Treason, a favorite of the right wing during the peak years of the Cold War. In recent weeks, the title has been played on by critics of Trump's connections (whatever they may be, exactly) to the Russian government and Russian business interests. Marty Kaplan wrote a piece for the Jewish Journal that is reprinted on the Bill Moyers website and contains the following (not entirely tongue in cheek) paragraphs: 

"Now that the CIA has determined that the Russians intervened in the presidential election to help Trump win, the Cold War politics of left and right have been flipped. If Stormer rewrote his book for 2016, its thesis might go like this: 

"Beware of Donald Trump. Witlessly or willfully, he’s doing the Kremlin’s bidding. Anyone who enables him — on his payroll or in the press, by sucking up or by silence, out of good will or cowardice — is Vladimir Putin’s useful idiot. This is a national emergency, and treating it like normal is criminally negligent of our duty to American democracy. 

"Trump as traitor: I can just imagine the reaction from the Tower penthouse. Lying media. Paranoid hyperbole. Partisan libel. Sour grapes. A pathetic bid for clicks. A desperate assault on the will of the people. Sad! (Note to the tweeter-in-chief: You’re welcome.)" 

Trump and his close associates as traitors -- indeed, that's how the right wing would have referred to Democrats who dared to get as close to the Kremlin in an earlier era. 

These are legitimate concerns, but may I suggest that an equally strong concern, not only for Indivisible but for all Americans, is Trump's lethargy over national security issues. It's not that he communicates a lack of interest in the subject, but that he isn't willing to do the necessary work. In those meetings with our congressional representatives, we might also point out that political meddling is preventing the U.S. from having a capable National Security Advisor who is allowed to appoint and administer a capable staff. At least, that was the case as of yesterday. Maybe the official policy (if not the actual practice) will change tomorrow. 

We might remember that George W. Bush, when told in his security briefing about Bin Laden's intentions, famously replied, "All right, you've covered your ass now." Trump got a lot of criticism for failing to attend several security briefings during the period between the election and his inauguration. His unwillingness (or inability) to put the necessary mental effort into receiving a full briefing has become known. It's worth worrying about, and it's worth complaining about to your congressional representative.

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

CONNECTING CALIFORNIA--California is already on the defensive in its battle with Donald Trump. Our state needs an offense—now. (Photo above: Former President Ronald Reagan at Presidential Library in 1997.)

Trump’s first four weeks in office have made clear that hopes of California working with this president—in areas like infrastructure—are pure fantasy. Trump is already engaged in non-stop attacks against our state, as if all of California were a political opponent. His strategy is not merely to punish California; he wants to rob our state of its legitimacy within the American polity.

And so the president of the United States has repeatedly and falsely claimed that California’s elections are fraudulent exercises that enable millions of illegal votes. He’s frequently accused our biggest cities of endangering our country by failing to assist federal goons with deportations. He has called the whole state “out of control” and threatened to “defund” our universities and unspecified state programs.

Such attacks are so potentially powerful (since they play into American resentments against our special state) and damaging (since California is the world’s sixth-largest economy and a vital model of diverse peoples prospering together) that we need to be fighting Trump much harder and more directly.

Put simply, California must delegitimize Trump before he delegitimizes us.

There are two ways California must go on offense against Trump. First comes the fist: Californians must aggressively question Trump’s legitimacy as president as often as possible. Second comes the outstretched hand: We must bolster our state’s own legitimacy by reaching out to the rest of America and reaffirming just how proud we are to be a part of this country.

Right now, our response to Trump is led by cautious souls: lawyers, politicians, and lawyer-politicians who focus on legislation and litigation. But this fight isn’t about laws. Trump must be fought on his turf: politics, culture, and media.

Our state needs a war room. Any outrageous allegation Trump makes against us should be answered with greater outrage. If Trump wants to make up claims of fraud in our elections, we should target his own frauds—from questionable business dealings to unpaid taxes to the confidence game that was Trump University. And we should pressure our law enforcement officials to investigate and publicize any questionable moves by his family’s ongoing business interests if they have any connection to California at all.

When Trump alleges again that California is “out of control,” California should press the president on who controls him. Let’s ask him which of the powers behind his throne we should be talking to when we have a complaint about him. Should we be discussing energy policy with your bosses at the Kremlin, Mr. President? Or with the Goldman Sachs executive committee? Or with the white supremacist groups backing you?

And when Trump threatens the funds for state programs, Californians should shout that Trump is trying to bankrupt the whole country. “If Mr. Trump gets his way, California won’t be the only state short of funds,” we should say. “His trade and immigration policies will destroy the economy, and his reckless spending and tax cuts will create unsustainable federal debt.” The strategy: Take the heat off California and put it back on Trump.

Indeed, the most powerful line of attack against this president is to question his patriotism. Trump has put Americanism at the heart of his political story—he’s an unapologetic nationalist, vowing to make America great again. But he’s actually vulnerable on nationalist grounds. He constantly slanders the country—lying about the murder rate, equating America’s leaders with the murderous autocrat Vladimir Putin, tweeting false insults against important American companies and businesses. Californians should point out the truth: that Trump’s attacks on this most American of states are really an attack against our entire country.

We don’t believe Trump is legitimate, but we respect Republicans and Trump voters. To make this sell, California Democrats should hold their noses and deploy the words of California president—and “great communicator”—Ronald Reagan as weapons against the current president.

To emphasize Trump’s lack of patriotism, we Californians must put our American patriotism on full throttle. That starts with killing off the traitorous (and Russian-affiliated) #Calexit movement. Instead, while Trump denigrates America on Twitter, California and its leaders should be looking for opportunities to praise and assist other states.

Our governor and other elected state leaders should be on the road, initiating high-profile meetings with their counterparts across the country, looking for areas of cooperation. When another state faces an emergency or natural disaster, California should be the first to send help. And whenever another state celebrates a great triumph—a game changing new business in North Carolina, a new university campus in Michigan—our leaders should show up and congratulate them in person. (Once there, we can take shots at Trump. A talking point: “In California we’re learning so much from your state’s example, which is important at this time, when Washington D.C. is so consumed with negative attacks.”)

Californians must focus on Trump, not his supporters. We don’t believe Trump is legitimate, but we respect Republicans and Trump voters. To make this sell, California Democrats should hold their noses and deploy the words of California president—and “great communicator”—Ronald Reagan as weapons against the current president.

The Gipper left us bon mots for every occasion.

To explain our fight with Trump: “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”

To build solidarity with other states: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.”

When we engage in protests: “No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.”

And as we counter Trump’s war against refugees and immigrants, we should invoke the 40th president as often as possible. “I, in my own mind, have always thought of America as a place in the divine scheme of things that was set aside as a promised land … any person with the courage, with the desire to tear up their roots, to strive for freedom, to attempt and dare to live in a strange and foreign place, to travel halfway across the world was welcome here.”

In that vein, California should shift its energies from opposing Trump’s Wall—that’s defense after all—and go on offense by demanding the removal of the existing wall along our state’s border with Mexico. The fact that there’s already a wall exposes the blatant wastefulness and redundancy of Trump’s proposed boondoggle—and might be news to Americans elsewhere. And we could point out that the current barrier doesn’t keep out the undocumented (airports are the real border gates), and is little more than an expensive eyesore that inconveniences tourists, businesses, and residents of the San Diego-Tijuana and Calexico-Mexicali regions. “Mr. Trump, tear down this wall!” we could thunder, in another Reagan echo.

Opposing the wall would be welcome in Mexico, and should be part of a California effort to develop our own foreign policy with allies Trump is offending. Governor Brown should press for summits with Mexico’s president and Canada’s prime minister, and seek high-profile meetings with other Trump-attacked U.S. allies from Australia to Germany. The state could then sign environmental, trade, tourism, or educational exchange deals that benefit California and put Trump on the spot. Why doesn’t the president make deals like that?

Sun Tzu advised, “If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him.” The dual offensive strategy outlined here—reaching out to our fellow U.S. states while attacking Trump’s legitimacy as president—would both irritate and isolate him. Such an offense is the best way to weaken Trump—and protect both our state and our country.

(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).)

-cw

CORRUPTION WATCH-Thank you Donald Trump for alerting us to a deadly serious problem: Alt-Facts. We are accustomed to Alt-Facts being sprinkled throughout sources of information like small doses of arsenic in our food so that we do not notice how our minds and thinking processes are being poisoned. The Donald, however, makes non-stop use of Alt-Facts. The best part of his Alt-Facts is that they are so obviously fake. 

The Donald did not invent Alt-Facts, but many of Americans treat a panoply of long standing myths as true. 

Here are some national issues that are misrepresented with Alt-Facts: 

Foreign Aid: The general public believes that 25% of the Federal budget goes to foreign aid. You will hear people say we should stop giving away our money to other countries before helping people at home. The Real Fact is that less than 1% of the Federal budget goes to foreign aid. 

3 to 5 Million Illegal Votes: Anyone who does not know about Trump’s bogus claim that he lost the popular vote because there were 3 to 5 million illegal votes for Hillary must have been sealed in an ice cave for the last several months. The interesting thing about Alt-Facts is that after they are proven completely false, their promoter sticks with them. 

PBS and NPR Cost Too Much: Trump says he will help balance the budget, which by the way is a really foolish idea, by cutting things like the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. Some people believe that PBS and NPR use 5% of the Federal budget, but the Real Fact is that together they are 0.01% (1/100th of 1%) of the Federal budget. 

Military Spending is Discretionary: Because the amount spent on the military is adjusted each year by Congress, people say it is “discretionary,” but I call this an Alt-Fact. Having a military is not discretionary, and thus, spending money on the military is not discretionary. The Real question should be what type of military do we need and how can we pay for it. One way of figuring it says the military is 57% of the budget. Another way of looking at the Federal budget says military spending is only 16%. Why do we argue over different Alt-Facts when both approaches are false? Shouldn’t we grow up as a country and realize that arguing over whose Alt-Fact is correct is not beneficial for any of us? 

Here are some areas where we find Alt-Facts that directly affect Los Angeles: 

Pensions & Benefits: The general public believes that 10% of Federal budget goes to pensions and benefits, when the real number is 3.2%. Also, if we were spending 10% on pensions and benefits, what would be wrong with that? The government’s main function is to provide services. Thus, spending money on pensions and benefits is required in order to have a government. 

At times, however, cities like Los Angeles have huge pension deficits, but the Alt-Fact with LA’s pension deficit is that the pensions themselves are not the problem. No, the problem is that the City has been deliberately under-funding its pensions. If the City had not been committing fraud by not making reasonable contributions to the pension funds, we would not be facing a huge future deficit. The fraud on the public is the false representation that the City is putting away enough money to pay the pensions when city employees retire.

As one can see, Alt-Fact based upon Alt-Fact can lead us into a terrible situation. Had the City of LA been making realistic contributions to the pension funds over the years, we would not be facing a future deficit. Now people want to reduce the pensions for newly hired people. That is an Alt-Fact solution since we know that when we lower the compensation packages, we end up with less qualified employees who do a worse job -- and end up costing the city more money. For one thing, bad employees make mistakes which increase the likelihood of the City being sued. 

LA City’s Lawsuit Settlements: The mayor intentionally understated the size of the upcoming lawsuit settlements and verdicts. Now that the money has to be paid, the City has to borrow about $60 million. If the City had not used Alt-Facts about the liabilities facing us, we would not have to pay Wall Street interest on the money which we now must borrow to pay for the lawsuits. Without the Alt-Facts that the City is using to mislead the public about our true liabilities, the City might not have given $197 million to the private Grand Avenue Project. That is triple the current “lawsuit deficit.” 

Measure S Opponents Say ‘S’ Stops All Construction: Some people who oppose Measure S on the March 2017 Primary Election ballot claim it will stop all construction. That Alt-Fact merits a Liar, Liar House on Fire rating. That is like saying laws against shopping lifting will ban all shopping. The only projects that are temporarily halted are illegal projects. People should ask themselves, what is it that’s wrong with Los Angeles that it now needs to have another law to say it is illegal to break the law? 

Why do we like Alt-Facts? 

The main reason people like Alt-Facts is that they are manufactured to tell people what they want to hear. When Garcetti gets on TV and tells Angelenos that we are moving ahead, when all the independent demographic data show that Los Angeles is moving backwards and that LA is at the bottom of the list for almost all the measures of the good life, people feel good. Unlike the orange buffoon who makes Alt-Facts so obvious, Garcetti is smooth. His brilliance is shown in his use of photo-ops. Unlike Football Tommy (former CD 4 Councilmember Tom La Bonge), who used to elbow his way to the camera, Garcetti appears almost reticent to appear. If we gave Oscars for presenting Alt-Facts, Eric Garcetti would win every year. 

The public is better off when Alt-Facts are yelled at us by lunatics like Kellyanne Conway, Sean Spicer, Steve (media should shut-up) Bannon and most recently and most frighteningly Stephen (“Actung, Thou shalt not question!”) Miller. Nonetheless, making decisions based upon Alt-Facts will never result in wise policy by a nation or by a city.

(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney. 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.

PLATKIN ON PLANNING--Whether LA voters adopt or reject Measure S, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, on March 7, the Planning Department will eventually update LA’s General Plan, including the city’s Community Plans. This process has already begun, but the unanswered question is how well they will do it. 

While I truly hope I am wrong, based on precedent, it will be a run-of-the-mill job, and once completed, City Hall’s spirits and trolls will quickly attempt to sabotage them.  My crystal ball says that without the combination of Measure S, follow-up voter Initiatives, alert public watchdogs, and numerous law suits, today’s dysfunctional city planning status quo will quickly re-emerge. 

As I previously wrote at CityWatch, based on its work program, the Department of City Planning will update the General Plan, but it will do so in reverse order. More specifically, they are already completing the implementation end-product, a totally revamped zoning code, through re:code LA. 

The City Council has, in fact, already begun to adopt several re-code LA ordinances. When completed over the next several years, LA’s zoning code will become far more permissive. The amended zoning code will permit, by-right, a much wider range of land uses. This will not only allow most new real estate projects to side-step the California Environmental Quality Act, but it will usher in enormous windfalls for commercial property owners. They can sell their properties for a greater price once they are re-zoned and avoid any additional property taxes. Until existing or new owners construct a replacement structure, these valuable City Hall handouts will remain untaxed. 

Meanwhile, the supposed driver of this process, the comprehensive update of the General Plan itself is just starting. What should be one of its final tasks, which actually began over a decade ago, are the updates of LA’s 35 Community Plans and two District Plans.  While the City Council wants these updates to proceed on a six year cycle, this can only happen when the current backlog of Community Plans is finally completed. 

The concluding work product task, which should be the first task, it to fully update LA’s mandatory and optional citywide General Plan elements.  Common sense indicates that you need to carefully understand the big picture before you can drill down to local issues. But, in the case of Los Angeles, common sense appears to be quite uncommon. It is driven by City Hall politics, and in Los Angeles that means the marginally criminal pay-to-play process described in recent months by two astute Los Angeles Times reporters, David Zahniser and Emily Alpert Reyes. In LA’s case, this means that the soft-corruption they exposed at City Hall will prevail over a carefully prepared and adopted planning process. 

This defective planning process will continue to neglect public infrastructure and public services, even though they essential part to urban governance, especially in an era of accelerating climate change. By continuing to separate the planning process from the City’s Capital Improvement Plan and its annual operating budget, we can toss and turn at night knowing that no one is actually minding the store in one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. 

This cart-before-the-horse approach may solve a few imminent political problems, like Measure S, but it is still bad city planning. Plan implementation should follow, not precede, extensive analysis of the entire city and its neighborhoods. It also needs to be mindful of the wide-ranging community outreach process mandated by Measure S.                                                                                                                                

What else should we gird ourselves for, to make sure we will not be hoodwinked during the anti-Measure S “counter-revolution”, especially when it emerges full force on March 8. 

The overturned  Hollywood Community Plan Update is probably the best model we have for turning the planning process into a catalyst for real estate speculation. In its case City Hall used inflated population data to justify 100 pages of up-zones and up-plans for Hollywood. To justify this slight of hand, City Hall resorted to an illusory claim that Hollywood’s existing zoning was not sufficient to house waves of new residents supposedly moving to Hollywood over the next two decades. Reality was just the opposite. Hollywood experienced notable population decline, not growth, from 1990 to 2010, and the most recent data indicates these trends have and will continue. As for a lack of sufficiently zoned parcels, there is no data whatsoever to support this parallel claim. It was and remains a total fiction. 

City Planning will also avoid serious technical monitoring of the completed updates, whether citywide General Plan elements or Community Plans.  At best monitoring will continue to be a public relations exercise. Reports will have the appearance of monitoring, but not its content. The cover page will surely have the word monitoring, but the contents will be so general that no revisions in planning policies or programs will ever be included or solicited. 

Finally, unless Measure S passes and is faithfully implemented, the City Council will incrementally undermine the updated General Plan Elements and zones it adopts through spot-zones, spot-General Plan Amendments, and spot Height District Changes. 

As for sustainability, the City Planning Commission and the City Council will continue to adopt un-monitored, boilerplate Statements of Overriding Considerations for Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). These statements, will, of course, promise transit ridership and jobs whenever the EIR's forecast unmitigatable levels of Green House Gases resulting from the un-planned projects so favored by LA’s elected officials. 

This grim future, though, is only one alternative. The future is open-ended. It depends on the long-term approach of those who support Measure S. Like earlier waves of community activists who fought for specific plans, Historical Preservation Overlay Ordinances, Proposition U, and important law suits like AB 283 and the General Plan Framework, today’s activists will also need to work on many fronts. This will includes campaigns against individual projects and give-away ordinances, still more voter Initiatives, endless law suits, and electing independent officials who comply with adopted planning and environmental policies and laws.

(Dick Platkin is a former LA City Planner who reports on local planning issues for City Watch. He also serves on the board of the Beverly Wilshire Homes Association.)

-cw

EASTSIDER--I know I keep mentioning that I’m a third generation Californian in these columns. I do it mostly because I have at best a tenuous interest in what happens in the corridors of power back east in places like Washington, DC. Their prep school/’right college’/network of people has essentially run the country for a long time. We in California have always been relegated to acting as an ATM machine for the federal government and the DNC/RNC political establishment. I know it’s a parochial view, but I believe it to be reasonably accurate. 

So, I try to avoid thinking about the moral rot of those who govern us, but the recent displays of political discord by both the Democrats and the Republicans has made me wonder what ever happened to the State of California that I grew up in. Forget DC. I don’t much recognize the current California, and how it is sucking the economic marrow out of our children, instead of preparing them for and providing decent jobs. 

In retrospect, I was a lucky person to be educated in the California of the 50’s and 60’s.   Schools worked differently then. High School still had shop and other vocational classes to provide training for actual jobs when you graduated, and they even had decent class sizes and counselors. 

Not that the system was without flaws. There were two tracks - one for those going on to college, and the other for those going on to wherever. Of course they also had homemaking classes for girls, but they let both guys and girls into the shop classes. Hey, it was another time.   

They also had a system where the children did not automatically promote from grade to grade in high school. I remember, because I was definitely not a mainstream student, being in a Junior High school in Fullerton, where many of my peers were older kids simply marking time until they were old enough to stop having to attend school. 

I mention all this because the LAUSD of today gave up that model of education for the “College & Career Readiness Through A-G”.   As they proudly announced in their latest form, the mission statement sets requirements that ‘all students will complete the minimum course requirements for the CSU system’. Good grief. 

Funny, in the old days it was recognized that a good chunk of people were not going to go to college, and needed preparation to be able to simply get a job - not necessarily one that required a college degree. In their zeal to get away from the old two track system which did indeed discriminate against some students, we have flipped the system into unreasonable requirements that everyone, as I once quipped, is going to go to Stanford’. Horsepuckey. 

The current system has resulted in over 1/3 of entering students never making it to graduation, period, and has utterly failed to produce real jobs for real people. Instead, the LAUSD keeps on lowering the standards to graduate, as if that is going to meet their silly goal. The only thing that it has produced lately is a bunch of Charter schools under the ‘leadership’ of Monica Garcia & funded by a billionaire backed industry looking to siphon education dollars into their coffers. 

Let me give you an example. The Department of Water and Power has an acute shortage of line workers -- the ones that work on those poles and towers to provide us with reliable power. These jobs don’t need a degree, but after a few years the employees are going to be making something like $100,000/year, with a defined benefit plan thrown in. However, the DWP can’t go on high school campuses to advertise these jobs because that isn’t going to get the students into college. 

This is nuts. Our children need jobs when they graduate, not simply being thrown to the wayside to maybe work in the low paying service industries. Right now, apprenticeships are taking off because our high schools no longer provide the free education to get jobs.

Instead, we have all those ‘technical institutes’, which are simply designed to provide what high schools don’t, and laden the students with a bunch of debt whether or not they complete the course, much less get a job. 

And as for those college degrees, all too many students get is over $50,000 in student debt that will hound them for the rest of their lives, whether or not the degree leads to real jobs with anything like a career ladder. This is not cool. 

My generation had the California of Governor Brown’s Master Plan for Education, where an excellent, free education was available to all of us. You can read about it here, and weep. 

I came out of that system, through Fullerton Jr. College, Cal State Fullerton, and then UC Berkeley. Didn’t cost much, and provided an excellent education. Why we don’t provide the resources to this for our children, I utterly fail to understand.

The Takeaway

If our educational system can’t provide jobs for our children, exactly what use is it? Seems to me that we starve the educational system of money, divert a good chunk of what money is left into Charter school experiments, even as many of them fail or in some cases steal the public funds for personal gain. 

Even as we try to get rid of tenure for teachers, look forward to breaking the public sector unions, and head down the path of vouchers instead of actual education leading to jobs. Arrgh! 

I only mention all of this because I know what a good educational system can produce. And it seems to me that none of the candidates for LAUSD are going to squat about fixing these issues. Not to mention the elected officials in Sacramento and Washington. 

C’mon, if we can organize and divert money from the lobbyists with their ‘special deals’ for politicians, corporations & financial services industry sharks, back to educating our children and providing real jobs for them, we will actually be accomplishing something to be proud of. 

Too many of my friends have lost jobs and may never have regular full-time employment. They have fallen by the wayside of no longer even being counted in the unemployment numbers, like un-people. Same for many of our children who have to continue to live at home, struggling to make their economic way in the world. As a society, this is simply unacceptable, and political platitudes won’t fix anything. 

In the California I grew up in, it didn’t used to be that way. Let’s make our politicians divert our tax dollars back into providing real education and real jobs for us and our children. We know that it can be done.

(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.)

-cw

EDUCATION POLITICS--Is it true there are LAUSD board candidates “supported by” Betsy DeVos?

Recently this very central, very arresting question was posted to a neighborhood social media website, highlighting the core themes of today’s political perplexity: culpability, association and formal logic.

The thread claimed that those who opposed DeVos should be aware that two carbon copy candidates running in tandem for the LAUSD fourth board district are “supported by” DeVos; today’s mail insisted the same.

“Not True” howled the pair’s supporters and indeed I have found no trace that DeVos has funded either candidate directly.

And yet these underlying claims of equivalency are, I believe, spot on.

Why?

Well first, the term “DeVos” has become iconic, representing an attitude, a political ideology and stance.  As well, she has become symbolic of Trump’s predilection for appointing cabinet members who are patently antagonistic to that department which they are tapped to lead.

As unpleasant as the second characteristic is, DeVos’ symbolism is only a secondary characteristic of LAUSD’s board race for the fourth district (BD4). There is little question that incumbent Steve Zimmer is eminently – and the most – qualified candidate for this position.  He has done the job for two terms already and arguably has been extremely effective at it, having climbed a very steep learning curve of mind-boggling complexity. Governing Los Angeles Unified is a gigantic job, so (i) working within a splinter school district just a very small fraction of its size, or (ii) tilting ineffectively against its entrenched bureaucracy (the twinned challenger’s qualifications respectively), does not constitute robust qualification for the post. This district is vast and its issues tremendously difficult to master; job familiarity is a strong asset.

Additionally his opponents champion the charter school ethos underwritten by Eli Broad in “a bold plan to expand the charter sector to serve 50% of Los Angeles public school students.” If such a plan cannibalizes the very system that spawned it, then these candidates could be said to be akin to the DeVos paradigm of anti-leadership because their ascension will destroy that which they are charged with directing.

However these would still be characteristics supported “by“ DeVos in only a derivative sense.

Steve Zimmers’ opponents are more directly supported by DeVos in the first, iconic, sense wherein she represents an enormously wealthied class, functioning as a special interest group in and of herself and her corporatized family. Their enormous wealth is employed toward parochial interests. She represents a numerically small but supremely vast elite that strong-arm elected officials and governance through the bully pulpit of campaign donations.

And make no doubt about it, the forces allied with charterizing America are an array of privateers that play for keeps just as DeVos’ compatriots; our very president explained this system plainly.

One of the biggest of these Education brokers operates right here in Los Angeles. Peering into the not-Zimmer initiative exposes big money focused on deposing the education of our little ones, on a scale that can only be described as fearsome. It is the same eclipsing support that swept Betsy De Vos into office despite patent nonqualification and ideological impropriety. And it harnesses the same cast of characters.

The national triumvirate of Education ®eform is framed by the Foundations of Bill and Melinda Gates, the Walton family, and Los Angeles’ Eli and Edythe Broad.

Both Broads have given both anti-Zimmer candidates separately the maximum in personal contributions, $2,200. Since 1998 they have contributed $29,700 to the personal campaigns of 12 LAUSD board members, all enthusiastic supporters of the Broad agenda (Garcia, Rodriguez, Galatzan, Gomez, Melvoin, Polhill, Johnson, Lee, Hudley-Hayes, Anderson, Sanchez, Vladovic; in descending order of largesse). For reference the couple or their businesses have contributed a total of $169K to the personal campaigns of local politicians in 236 increments below $1,100 each. This is approximately 0.0023% of Eli Broad’s estimated $7.4b net worth, which qualifies him as of 2015 as America’s 58th-wealthiest individual.

That’s nevertheless a lot of tiny little influential bon-bons that add up fast. The cash-on-hand in LAUSD’s wealthy  war-chests ($367,414) totals four times that ($90,200) of Zimmers’.

But the real money comes in Independent Commitees, aka PACs.

IEs come in two flavors: PRO and CON (Support and Opposition). The raft of nasty negative mailings you think you’re fielding is not an artifact of, say, sensitivity or perception. To date more money has been spent oppositionally in BD4 than supportively. And while supportive literature is about 2/3-more prevalent for Steve Zimmer, his doubled-up opposition has spent nearly 8.5 times as much in slamming out put-downs.

Yet the style of campaigning varies with the source of monies. “Labor” coalitions spend nearly 7 times as much to convey reasons you might approve a candidate; “Business interests” spend nearly 1.5 times the resources addressing the opposite side of beyond, a parade of alternative suggestions from the dark side of truth:

But the real question is: who peddles their influence through IEs; who composes these groups? As antagonists, their spending power is mismatched; “business interests” are nearly double “labor’s power”.

In reverse order of beneficence, focusing on Eli Broad simply because he is the patron of our city even while his fellow billionaires exhibit a promiscuousness for place that only the super-wealthy can afford:

The treasurer of Students For Education Reform is a 10-year veteran investor from Goldman Sachs, the group’s chair is on the board of NewSchools Venture Fund, which is heavily supported by the Broad Foundation. The group is organized in New York, with San Francisco ties.

Dick Riordan is LA’s former mayor, a republican who has massaged education politics in Los Angeles for decades, he is one of many mayors who would abolish a democratically elected school board if permitted. Unlike Eli Broad and many supporters of Education ®eform, Richard Riordan is not a billionaire, but a mere multi-millionaire. His wealth is empirically adequate all the same to the task of influence peddling here in the City of Angels.

The CA Charter Schools Association Advocates IE Committee is a conglomerate of individuals plus agglomerated committees. Since the last LAUSD election in 2013, twenty-two million dollars has been donated to this committee. Eli Broad’s individual contribution to this was $1.4m but he is also a contributing donor to many of the committee’s 11 constituent PACs. For example just one of these, EdVoice’s IE Committee, received $12.5m since 2013, $775K of which was from Eli Broad. Several other coalitions are constituted with Broad Foundation money too.

Parent-Teacher-Alliance is, as the myriad flyers littering our landfills declare, “Sponsored by California Charter Schools Association Advocates Independent Expenditure Committee”. This is not your parent’s “PTA”; it is an “alliance”, and never despite careful parroting, the “association” copyrighted over a hundred years ago.

Eli Broad’s contribution since 2013 to this corporate “name-identity theft” is $305K. And so this group is as uroboric as the rest; groups composed of groups composed of the same individuals investing in the same narrative. On a bigger scale exactly the same cast of billionaires continues to nest infinitely inside these same groups: here in this specific node, Carrie Walton Penner ($450K) and Jim Walton ($250K) of Wal-mart, Dorris Fisher ($550K) of the Gap family fortune, Michael Bloomberg ($250K), America’s 6^th-wealthiest estimated at a net worth of 45 billion dollars; Reed Hastings ($1.5m), the CEO of Netflix which just so happens to have produced sensational footage of criminality reminiscent of subsequent negative campaigning against Steve Zimmer; John Scully ($200K), CEO of Apple “ipadgate” fame and “executive-in-law” of another ubiquitous Education ®eform investor, Laurene Powell Jobs, plus the ever-present Riordan ($50K).

The point is, there are thousands of these investment repositories hiding one inside another, obscuring the true reach that this small cadre of individuals hold as underwriters of Education ®eform. This is a small convenience sample of the larger financially and managerially incestuous whole. It is a schema designed for influence and speculating, not education and certainly not social welfare as is so often claimed. The convoluted structure hiding contributors masks the extent of collusion and obsession between opportunities most accurately characterized simply as capitalist bonanzas. These names which recur seemingly indefinitely suggest a capacity for political machination that is essentially unbounded.

The final, most spendy PAC, LA Students For Change, is yet another Dick Riordan vehicle for piling fuel on the anti-Zimmer offensive.

A full review of these investor’s roots reveal close ties with charter management organizations, whether nominally “For Profit” or not (e.g., KIPP, Alliance), with investment firms and hedge funds that specialize in Education instruments profiteering on our children’s natural civil right to equitable, accountable education (e.g., Oaktree Capital Management, NewSchools Venture), and with Foundations dedicated to the “vulture philanthropy” that primes this engine of economic opportunism at the expense of our – yet curiously never their – children (e.g., Broad, DeVos, Arnold).

This is the funding juggernaut that underwrites our relatively humble school board race. Those in its clutch seem unaware of the cultivated language they have incorporated and now use as their own. But this implementation of the corporate-elite’s agenda is plain to see if not in denial. This is the sense in which our school board election is recapitulating the DeVos acclamation.

The magnitude and lure of such an extensive network filled with people whose interests are antithetical to public school participants, should cause any supporter of justice to pause.

Ask yourself simply: Why? Why do the hyper-rich want to control your children’s schooling? And since the events in Washington make evident that clearly they do, consider the vulnerability of our children here to elections that inadvertently mirror this horror. Elections here as nationally, have consequences that can be anticipated and isolated with the warning we now have. It isn’t new and is therefore a maxim well worth heeding:  Follow The Money. Beware associations that exact moral sacrifice. Don’t excuse slander even in alternative form. Decency is a leadership trait worth voting for.

Please vote AGAINST Crony Capitalism on the school board. Vote for Steve Zimmer. Vote for Señora-Alva or Parent-Petersen. Do not accept the dictates of our homegrown DeVos.

(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

MY TURN-We have a Primary Election on March 7 and will probably see an underwhelming turnout. Maybe it’s because we are still exhausted from the recent national election and its subsequent events. Unfortunately, the March primary and the May final will have more short term -- and perhaps long term -- effects on your day to day living. I must hedge that by saying local elections will matter more providing we don’t have some huge natural or political disaster. 

Local elections are not exciting. More money is being spent on the race for Board of Education than other offices. I have never seen so many negative flyers against one candidate: Steve Zimmer. He has been blamed for everything wrong with the LA school system and a few other things thrown in for good measure. I am surprised he hasn't been accused of initiating the recent earthquakes. The opposition to him has spent over a million dollars. That could buy a lot of supplies in District 4. 

In my last article I pointed out that this City Council race has all incumbents running except for District 7, the Northeast portion of the San Fernando Valley. Sometimes those who live outside the SFV don't realize that the Valley is as large as Chicago (220 sq. miles) and has almost as many land uses.   

Years ago, I didn't vote for secession from LA, but I now understand why the NE portion of the Valley was so enthusiastic about it. All fifteen Council Districts have their unique sets of challenges. On Wednesday, the LA Times wrote about District 15 and its very divergent stakeholders and problems. The majority of pundits seem to believe that the number of members on both the LA County Board of Supervisors and on the LA City Council is inadequate. Both should be enlarged so that they can more effectively represent their stakeholders. 

Acknowledging that all districts have issues, I must admit that Council District 7 seems to have more than its fair share. Now it seems to be motivated to not to make the same mistake by electing a City Councilmember with his own agenda. Fortunately, Filipe Fuentes resigned and City Council President Herb Wesson took District 7 under his umbrella. He showed up for events and meetings and was able to undo some of the damage that Fuentes inflicted on his stakeholders. 

The good news is there are 19 City Council candidates running campaigns in CD 7. The bad news is they have 19 candidates running for this non-partisan City Council seat. Will there be a runoff? Absolutely! 

Two candidates who have held other local government positions have raised the most money in the District 7 -- by six figures. The majority have raised under $20,000. In looking at the group of candidates I was pleased to see the number of neighborhood activists throwing their hats in the ring. Even though there are only about 65,000 stakeholders in District 7, it runs the gamut economically, politically and ethnically. 

CD 7 has all the challenges the other districts have and a few extra -- plus Governor Brown’s High Speed Rail is supposed to run through their community. They are, as a group very vocal and even though there are the usual power struggles and conflicts over projects, they have historically been participants in trying to get things done for their community. In my opinion, they are a good example of grassroots "doers"...not just noisemakers. 

Several Neighborhood Councils have sponsored candidate forums in the NE Valley. Last Saturday two NCs (Sunland Tujunga and North Hills East) offered one hosted by the Pacoima Chamber of Commerce and All Nations Church. Twenty questions were sent to each candidate. You can view those questions and their answers at the Sunland-Tujunga NC website: stnc.org. The candidates were also allowed to post a two-minute video on the site. After the formal part of the program, visitors were invited to have one on one time at each candidate’s table. Most had flyers, volunteer support as well as the answers to the 20 questions. Measure S seems to be the most controversial issue. 

I also urge you to check the Los Angeles City Ethics Department’s website. It is a real eye opener to see where the money is coming from and to whom. 

I know the last thing we need is more political talk. I have started to switch channels and am enjoying Madam Secretary and House of Cards as my political diversion. At least we can root for the good guys and hiss the villains. At the moment, it’s hard to tell who is who in Washington D.C. 

This is another reason why we need to select our local candidates very carefully. California may end up being on its own with some issues -- although I understand British Colombia has invited California, Oregon, and Washington to join them. 

As always comments are welcome.

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

RANTZ & RAVEZ-The “Safe Sidewalks LA” program is another example of how City Hall deals with issues impacting the quality of life in Los Angeles and your individual neighborhoods. We are told that walking is good exercise and you should do it on a regular schedule to reduce your weight, lower your chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke and stay in shape. While some join a gym and work out on a regular schedule, many of us walk in our neighborhoods to exercise for health and relaxation. 

With this in mind, we discover that the City approved a $1.4 billion dollar investment in repairing the sidewalks throughout Los Angeles over the next 30 years. This was the result of a lawsuit settlement. Where will most of us who are reading this article be 30 years from now? Take your current age and add 30. When you come up with the final number, you’ll find that many of us will be either in the old folks’ home, living with our children (if they will have us,) at the cemetery or in a box sitting on a mantle. Not many other options available for us Baby Boomers. 

The above photo was taken in the Valley and is reflective of most of the city’s broken sidewalks. Just think how nice the sidewalks might be in the year 2047! It is past time to get this program off the ground for our residential neighborhoods. As of a couple of days ago, the City is still trying to get its act together to move this worthy program forward. To report sidewalks in need of repair, you can call 311 or go to www.sidewalks.lacity.org.  

There is also a program available for those who wish to pay for the sidewalk repair and receive a rebate of up to $2,000 for a residential lot or $4,000 for a commercial lot. If any progress happens in your neighborhood, let me know. To date, the only repairs I have noticed are in areas near government buildings or new construction locations at the expense of the developer.   

Ready or not…Election time is here once again…and few people really care this time around. Vote on March 7! 

While the National Election is over and national protests are continuing over the election of President Donald J. Trump, we find ourselves facing another election in our City of Los Angeles. Our Mayor and a host of other candidates and a couple of other issues are on the ballot. While some councilmembers and other elected officials are facing little to no opposition, there is no real energy behind this election cycle throughout the City. Does anybody know or care that there is an election on March 7 for the Los Angeles Mayor, City Attorney, Controller, some councilmembers and a few ballot measures? 

The Mayor has ten candidates running for his seat. None of them have gained any strength and I predict that Mayor Garcetti will easily win his election. The City Attorney and Controller have no opposition so they will win without any fight. There is a fight in the 5^th Council District where Councilman Paul Koretz is facing Jess Creed. I have my money on Jess to win this election. In the 7^th District, there is a fight for the open seat. There are also seats on the Community College District Board of Trustees up for election. These are important for the education of our adult population. 

While little attention is being paid to the candidates in the various elections, some publicity is being generated by County Measure H and City Measure S. Measure H is a county tax measure that will generate funds for the homeless. The City already passed the ½ cent sales tax for homeless housing (HHH). Now the County comes at us again for supportive services for the homeless. I say NO MORE TAXES! VOTE NO on Measure H. 

Measure S is a way to give LA an opportunity to catch up with the massive development projects throughout the region. With traffic a mess throughout the City and our infrastructure falling apart, it is time to pause and let the City catch up with these massive developments throughout Los Angeles. I say vote YES on Measure S. It will not cost you any money and hopefully it will improve our quality of life. 

NIMBYS in Walnut Acres 

I have been asked to offer an apology to those in the Walnut Acres neighborhood for my article on the Senior Housing Development on Fallbrook south of Victory Blvd. The attorney that filed the original court action against the project has contacted me and provided me with court documents to review. 

The documents are lengthy and I am in the process of reviewing them. After a review, I will decide if an apology is in order. I do know that I will offer an apology to the seniors who are being deprived of a place to live by the actions of those fighting the development that I approved (and still support) when I served on the LA City Council. 

Should a developer be required to pay $445,000 to settle opposition to a development? More to come on this story.

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

ALPERN AT LARGE--I really feel for those Angelenos getting pummeled between the pro- and anti-Measure S arguments and literature.  Why wouldn't they be confused...especially with the distractions occurring at the federal and state levels of government.  But the question of why Measure S comes down to this:  Does the citizenry of the City of Los Angeles trust the City Council and Downtown government to support the interests of law abiding, taxpaying Angelenos? 

While acknowledging that there are a few good local pols, overall the answer must be a resounding NO! 

The founder and father of our City's experiment in grassroots democracy, former Mayor Richard Riordan, supports Measure S. 

Our current Mayor, Mayor Eric Garcetti, who is a certain improvement over his predecessor but has overseen megadevelopment that have been ruled as illegal in court, opposes Measure S. 

Those supporting Measure S?  The volunteers.  The environmentalists.  The affordable housing advocates.  The neighborhood preservation advocates who have ALWAYS compromised and encouraged good development for more housing when sustainable and affordable. 

Those opposing Measure S?  Two groups:  the "true believers" that believe that megadevelopment and a "Blade Runner" scenario of a sterile, overcrowded Los Angeles is WONDERFUL, and those who are primarily opposed to Measure S because they're being PAID (Primarily Associated In Development) to fight it. 

After all, nothing says being pro-megadevelopment (and not just pro-REASONABLE development) than Herb Wesson and his band of "Trumplestilskins" on the City Council who are awash in developer money and are much more beholden to their corporate sponsors than the voters they purport to represent. 

And why NOW are the City Councilmembers rushing to update Community Plans, "ban" or "limit" corporate money for City political races? Why are they NOW talking a better Planning Environmental Review process?

Well, after decades of citizens and Neighborhood Councils screaming for a legal, rule-abiding City of Los Angeles, Measure S came up. 

So Let's Make Something Clear: 

1) THIS City Council and Mayor have never truly respected the citizenry and Neighborhood Councils.  A few stand out as listeners and honest brokers, but overall they and the Planning Politburo they've created don't give a DAMN about the citizenry.  We're NIMBY.  We're unenlightened.  We're uneducated.  We're just too darned "mean" to "get it". 

2) THIS City Council and Mayor, and those before them, are continuing a process of undermining the Neighborhood Councils Mayor Riordan rammed through 15-20 years ago just like they've done for LADWP reform and for budget reform.  Lip service, but when push comes to shove it's always on "their terms", with a tweak or two to ensure things stay the same, and that real reform just doesn't get implemented. 

3) THIS City Council and Mayor don't want Planning and related reform.  They want the continued "pay to play" with enough money greased over enough palms to get elected and re-elected, and with a few social issue distractions to make those of us still not too cynical to vote willing to keep them in office. 

To reiterate and summarize, as stated in my last CityWatch article, and with the understanding that I am NOT being PAID: 

1) If Measure S passes, housing and construction will go on aplenty...just not the illegal megadevelopments.  

2) If Measure S passes, the focus of construction will be on affordable housing for the middle class and for Senior Affordable Housing, Student Affordable Housing, and Workforce Affordable Housing...but not so much for luxury housing unless that luxury housing is done within the confines of the law.  

3) If Measure S passes, there will be plenty of apartments and opportunities to upgrade our commercial corridors to create wonderful new places for people to call "home".  

4) If Measure S passes, high-density housing and development that is transit-oriented will certainly be welcomed next to train stations...but car-oriented megadevelopments will not be.  

5) If Measure S passes, the opportunity for low-rise development to house the middle class can be the new focus of construction throughout the City of the Angels (even for that region south of the I-10 freeway) that prevents gentrification and empowers the middle class. 

Just remember: those supporting Measure S also support livability and environmental sustainability for all Angelenos.  

And also remember: those supporting Measure S are those who've overseen and led us into the problems we now face with inappropriate development, and either have ...  

… a conflict of interest and are getting PAID, or   

… just don't give a damn about the worsening lives of tired, exhausted, and increasingly-disillusioned volunteer Angelenos who just simply want to save their City.

(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 CD11Transportation 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

GUEST WORDS--Right after I graduated college something happened to me that has happened to many other Latino men but few other Members of Congress. My brother and I were pulled over by the police in broad daylight. Suddenly there were five police cars surrounding us. My car was turned inside out without reason. I was questioned belligerently by the police. And we were asked, ‘what gang are you a member of?’ I remember it like it was yesterday.

This is a reality for many Latino men. And right now, it’s Daniel Ramirez Medina’s living hell.

I have serious concerns about the way Mr. Ramirez Medina is being treated. I’m even more irate over the ICE agent’s alleged comment that because Mr. Ramirez Medina wasn’t ‘born in this country,’ it didn’t matter that he is a legal DACA recipient.

This incident is a clear example of the deep-rooted, fundamental problems in our system – especially when it comes to immigration and criminal justice. Not everyone in our country receives fair and just treatment.

ICE’s detainment of Mr. Ramirez Medina, in addition to their LA-based raids and their general lack of transparency, leads me to assume the worst – that this Administration has unleashed a chain of events that will diminish the safety of our country and the stability of our economy for American citizens and immigrants. The Trump Administration has decided to disregard the dignity of our friends and neighbors.

Is it the new Administration’s policy to disregard a person’s legal, government-issued work and residency documents, simply if they weren’t born here? Will we continue to see raids on our communities tearing parents away from their children? Are DACA Recipients and DREAMers in danger? Can we take President Trump at his word that DACA recipients ‘shouldn’t be very worried’ because he has ‘a big heart’?

As an elected public servant, I demand answers to these questions, and I will not be silent until I have answers.

(Tony Cardenas is U.S. Congressman for LA’s 29^th District in the San Fernando Valley.)

-cw