LOS ANGELES

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW-Two bills that would have improved transparency at the California Coastal Commission were defeated last week, disclosing a slant toward business, labor, and pro-development interests. A third measure that would mandate one of the commission’s fifteen members to be from a low-income minority community that is impacted by environmental problems did pass the Assembly and is headed for Governor Brown’s desk. 

Senate Bill 1190, sponsored by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), would have banned ex-parte contacts between commissioners and developers, lobbyists, environmentalists and others with an interest in the commission’s decisions. Forty-seven assembly members voted against the bill, with 21 abstentions. Only twelve members supported the bill. 

Jackson’s bill had an endorsement from the Coastal Commission and was passed in the Senate but the measure faced resistance in the Assembly from a roster of organizations, including the California Farm Bureau Federation, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Western States Petroleum Assn., and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, as well as the California League of United Latin American Citizens and lobbyist Susan McCabe who represents development interests.

The bill’s opponents used the “free speech” argument alleging that the ban would restrict labor representatives, developers and others from providing their views to commission members. The California Coastal Act requires commissions to stick to issues like public coastal access and environmental issues, not business or economic benefits. If commissioners do not follow these guidelines, their decisions can be challenged in court. 

Supporters of the bill state that most ex-parte contacts are between commissioners and developers looking for approval along California’s coastline, which can impact the fairness of subsequent proceedings. In lieu of ex-parte meetings, developers and others, they say, should address their concerns during public hearings and not behind closed doors.

Assembly Bill 2002, sponsored by Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and Assemblyman Mark Stone (D-Monterey Bay), would have required anyone who lobbies the Coastal Commission to register with the state and to disclose clients with business before the commission. The bill would also have fast-tracked reporting of ex-parte meetings and made the disclosures more accessible to the public.

The measure faced an uphill battle due to the two-thirds vote requirement, as it would have amended the Political Reform Act. The bill failed to pass in the Senate. Opposition to the bill included lobbyists, construction, real estate and agricultural interests, the same groups that also worked to defeat the ex-parte bill. 

The beleaguered Coastal Commission has been under scrutiny by courts and the media for its lack of transparency in reporting ex-parte meetings or reporting them late and without much detail, all of which appear to violate statutory requirements. Just over two weeks ago, Spotlight on Coastal Corruption and attorney Cory Briggs filed a lawsuit in San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that five coastal commissioners (Chairman Steve Kinsey, Erik Howell, Martha McClure, Wendy Mitchell and Mark Vargas) had violated ex-parte disclosure rules 590 times. 

Until we see complete transparency and a ban of ex-parte meetings, the Coastal Commission will answer to special interests with deep pockets. Our miles of coastline will be up for grabs, sold to the highest bidder. You could lose you California beach. I ask again, where the hell is the outrage!?

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

CORRUPTION WATCH-CityWatch has had a few articles recently about the harm which secrecy does to our society. On September 5, 2016, Daniel Guss described, in “Garcetti Playing Dirty Pool?”  the behind the scenes attack on John Vidovich of the Los Angeles Fire Department. It seems his misdeeds were reduced to the number uninspected buildings in Los Angeles and trying to save the homes and lives of those living in the Hollywood Hills near Lake Hollywood. 

On the same day, CityWatch ran a piece about the harm that the Brown Act’s secrecy causes by permitting city government to hide its corrupt machinations from the public. 

CityWatch has also written more than a few times about the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative that calls for no more secret meetings between developers and city councilmembers. 

A major factor in this widespread secrecy is the unanimous voting at City Council where all items pass unanimously. As reported by the Los Feliz Ledger, Councilmember David Ryu admits that it is futile to vote No since all the other councilmembers will vote Yes. Ryu’s reasoning seems to be: What sense would it make to expose the dirt behind the scenes when each councilmember is obligated to vote Yes? 

A Case Study of Secrecy and How It Pollutes Society 

Let’s take a look at just one case of secrecy that shows the relationship between not only the secret dealings between developers and city councilmembers, but illustrates how the entire system is enveloped in a cloud of criminality. We shall analyze the secret dealings between Councilmember Krekorian’s Office, City Planning and the developer to see how Marilyn Monroe’s home was demolished and how the entire system, including the courts, closed ranks to protect the criminal voting system at City Hall. 

Developer Purchased Marilyn Monroe’s Former Home, Knowing its Historical Significance 

The listing for the family home at 5258 Hermitage Avenue in Valley Village included the express statement of that it was the former home of Marilyn Monroe. Thus, when the developer bought the property, he already knew he had a problem. 

Although the City still has failed to provide all the documentation about the contacts between Councilmember Krekorian’s office and the developer, during litigation a significant email was discovered from the developer’s attorney to City Planning stating: 

From: Mary Neifert <[email protected]>

Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Subject: 5258 Hermitage Historical Assessment

To: [email protected]

Hi Tom,

The APC appeal hearing is

Per your suggestion last month, the owner of 5258 Hermitage Avenue had a historical assessment done on the property to defend against the appeal on file. I have attached it hereto for your review. Hopefully it can be included in your report to the Committee. Please contact me if you need any further information. 

This email was not shared with the public. Not only does it tell us was there was prior contact between the developer and City Planning, but it also reveals that City Planning had expressly asked the developer to prepare a biased report against finding any historical value to Marilyn Monroe’s former home. In case anyone questions whether this communication between the developer and City Planning was intended to be secret, the attorney concludes with: 

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may be protected attorney work product or subject to the attorney client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, kindly notify Mary Neifert immediately by telephone at **** - or by e-mail at****.com. Please also destroy all copies of this message and any attachments hereto. 

While the City has chosen to keep the prior contacts between Councilmember Krekorian, City Planning and the developer secret, it is clear that prior to receiving any data about the property’s historical status, City Planning was asking the developer to provide a slanted report on which the Planning Department’s Ken Bernstein could then rely to claim that there was no historical significance to Marilyn’s home.   

In what type society is the City allowed to be the biased and dishonest advocate for a developer who wants to destroy a historic structure? On April 9, 2015, we found this email from City Planning’s Ken Bernstein. 

Ken Bernstein <[email protected]> Zhu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:47 PNI

To: Tom Henry <[email protected]>

Cc: Tom Glick [email protected]>, Lambert Giessinger <[email protected]>

Thanks, Tom, for checking back with us on this — I hadn't noticed that the APC hearing was happening today. Yes, we reviewed the ARG historic resources assessment, found it complete, and agreed with the findings.

understand from Lambert that another consultant, Charlie Fisher, may raise the argument that Marilyn Monroe was first discovered during the period she lived at this property, but I would agree with ARG's conclusion that this alone isn't sufficient to make the building eligible for designation.

Ken, Ken Bernstein, AICP, Manager, Office of Historic Resources. & Principal City Planner, Policy Planning 

Ken Bernstein’s office, which had requested the biased ARG report, agrees with the report’s conclusion, despite the fact that he has learned that the community will be submitting a report from noted historian Charlie Fisher. Nonetheless, without bothering to wait for the Charlie Fisher report, Ken Bernstein agrees that the home is not significant.   

About one hour later at 1:49 pm, and before that afternoon’s meeting of the Area Planning Commission, Ken Bernstein re-writes his email with some interesting changes. 

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ken Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote: 

Tom,

I wanted to let you know that the Office of Historic Resources' staff did review the historic resource assessment for 5258 Hermitage, prepared by Architectural Resources Group. We found the report to be thorough and complete, and concurred with the report's findings. While we understand that Marilyn Monroe was initially "discovered" to begin her modeling career while living at this property, this alone is not sufficient to qualify the property for historic designation. Our eligibility standards for Survey LA, our citywide historic resources survey, are consistent with the guidance from the National Park Service: properties achieving eligibility for designation due to their association with historic persons should be those associated "with a person's productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance." Because this property is from the earliest stages of Monroe's career, and she was not discovered at this particular site, the historic association at this site is not sufficient to meet designation criteria.

Ken, Ken Bernstein, AICP, Manager, Office of Historic Resources & Principal City Planner, Policy Planning 

Here we see secrecy in action. Any mention of Charlie Fisher and his report has been deleted. Ken Bernstein, who is the Manager of the Office of Historic Resources, is concealing that fact that there will be another historic report with a different conclusion. Wouldn’t one think that the Area Planning Commission would like to know that there is contrary report?   

While Ken Bernstein refers to the ARG (Architectural Resources Group), one could never find that Ken Bernstein allowed the Area Planning Commission to see the ARG report. Thus, we have double secrecy: The actual ARG report and the fact that it had been solicited to be biased are withheld from the Area Planning Commission. It turns out that the ARG report contained many facts which showed that the property had historical significance and that its conclusion was not supported by its facts. Thus, one may reason that the contents of the ARG report were kept secret from the Area Planning Commission because the Commission disagreed with Mr. Bernstein and it might decide that the city should conduct a study of alternatives to demolishing the home. 

SaveValleyVillage Sues the City of Los Angeles 

SaveValleyVillage sued the City and the developer over destruction of Marilyn’s Valley Village home due to its failure to proceed in the correct legal manner. For the legal case, the city was required to identify all pertinent documents so that they could be included in the Administrative Record on which the court would base its opinion. 

Did City Planning provide any copy of the ARG Report on which Ken Bernstein said he relied? No. Although the city certified that it had produced everything, the ARG report remained secret. Ken Bernstein also failed to provide the City Attorney’s Office a copy of the Charlie Fisher report which explained why the property had historical significance. Thus, City Planning had cleansed the Administrative Record of any historical report from which SaveValleyVillage could argue that the property had historic significance. Also, there is no reason to believe that the City Attorney’s Office knew about the missing documentation. 

After SavevalleyVillage had submitted its brief to the court, the City saw that a member of the public had attached the crucial four pages of the Charlie Fisher report to an email and that those four pages, which had not been routed through Mr. Ken Bernstein, had made it into the Administrative Record. 

This breach of secrecy was devastating to the developer and to Ken Bernstein’s opinion. The only factual evidence in the Administrative Record supported the position that Marilyn’s home had historic significance. 

Then and only then a miracle occurred: the City Planning “discovered” the ARG report. Despite the fact that SaveValleyVillage had already submitted its brief and had laid out its entire case for all to see, the court thought that it should consider the ARG Report. The court believed that if Ken Bernstein had the opportunity to review the ARG report in secret and to conceal the ARG Report from the Area Planning Commission and keep it out of the Administrative Record, then the court should most certainly rely on that secret document. Why, anything less would be unfair.

In rendering his August 29 decision, Judge Fruin relied on a case from August 12, 2016 even though the briefing in his Marilyn Monroe case had been completed in July.

The Criminogenic Nature of Los Angeles Culture 

Members of the public need to understand the criminogenic culture that permeates Los Angeles. The lynchpin in this criminal culture is the vote trading pact which Penal Code § 86 criminalized in 2006. 

If city councilmembers were free to complain about and vote against a developer who secretly colluded with the Department of Planning to destroy Marilyn’s home, then Councilmembers such as Paul Krekorian might not feel so secure in being able to subvert the law. Without the City Council’s criminal voting pact, Councilmember Krekorian would have had to risk the project’s being voted down due to the illicit manner in which the council office, city planning and the developer conspired to destroy the property. 

The public needs to understand the vital importance that the criminal voting pact plays in Los Angeles. It allows every councilmember to know that no matter how illegal a project may be, no matter what may have transpired in secret behind closed doors, his or her project is guaranteed unanimous support. What good is secrecy between the council offices, city planning and developers when it can be brought into the open during a public debate a city council? 

If the City had followed CEQA and issued an Environmental Impact Report concerning the limited issue of the historic significance of Marilyn Monroe’s home, one CEQA alternative would have been to move the small structure to another location. For example, the Lasky Production Barn was moved from Gower Gulch in Hollywood to opposite the Hollywood Bowl. 

As for the City’s permitting the public forum, which an EIR would have provided, Judge Fruin wrote: 

Petitioner suggests that the structures, or at least the back house in which Norm Jeane and her mother-in-law lived, could have been moved to a different location and serve as a Hollywood attraction. See rd Am. Pet. @ 21:23-25 and 22: 2-6; see also Pet. Br., p.8 and Reply Br., p.8. (Moving a structure to a different location is considered to diminish its historical integrity. [bold added] August 29, 2016 Statement of Decision page 8 ¶2 

Thus, Judge Fruin seems to believe that considering the historic value of Marilyn Monroe’s Valley Village home would have been a waste of time since moving a historic structure “diminishes it historical integrity.” Apparently, smashing it to smithereens so that not even a match stick size parcel of wood remains is a suitable option to relocating the home. 

Judge Fruin shows no concern about Mr. Bernstein’s secrecy or his own reliance on a report which the developer’s own attorney admits was asked to be biased against finding the property to have historic significance. In some judicial systems, judges question the reliability of such evidence. 

Could there be any stronger judicial support for secretive collusion between a developer and the City than relying wholeheartedly on a secret report that was solicited to be biased and withheld from the Administrative Record? 

Secrecy and the culture of criminality go hand in hand.

(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.

NO ON BLACK HOUSING-To quote the late, great Martin Luther King, who deserves his own holiday as much as any President, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."  Well, at CSULA, we've got no dream … we’ve got a nightmare:  a New Racism, as repugnant and dangerous as any Old Racism we've ever seen. 

I'm sure there are a few "diversity" types or "social justice warrior" types, who will defend the "living learning community" of black-focused housing at Cal State Los Angeles, and to those creepy types I wish them all the racist monikers and scorn they richly deserve. 

Shall we have separate bathrooms and water fountains for African-American students, but this time of

THEIR choosing to make it all "better"?  How about black robes with eyes cut out, for good measure, so those living at the black-focused housing can recognize a fellow self-excluded member and feel "safe"?  

Perhaps we can have some "white-focused" housing, too, now that we're going "full-on racist"? 

Yes, these ARE very harsh criticisms and statements, but after a half-century of our nation fighting to create a melting pot in America, which Martin Luther King and his heroic team of TRUE "social justice warriors" fought to make real in the United States (and not just diversity among white/European backgrounds), this regressive CSULA housing experiment is such a horrific step backwards that it should be stopped altogether. 

As a physician who worked for outreach to minority students to attend my medical school in Texas, and who still advocates for more medical Spanish and cultural sensitivity to be taught to medical professionals, I've also observed the need for patients and professionals alike to get over their cultural differences. 

We're "culturally-sensitive," which is smart and just, but are we as a society brave and demanding of our need to get over those cultural barriers, and to emphasize that there's only one race--the human race? 

And that we're of one people--the American People--in this nation? 

The only exclusive/cultural needs that might be open for housing is for those based on gender and sexual preference ... although those, too, have their risks in a society that has to live with and work with each other.  So while LGBTQ and single-sex housing might make for greater comfort to those living there, it's best for all of us to end bullying and fighting to coexist. 

College is supposed to prepare us for the real world, and any successful American will not get to his/her goals without confronting the differences and similarities of our fellow human beings.

Certainly, any black student who truly wants to succeed will have nothing to do with this form of housing--which is publicly-funded, and should be subject to appropriate rules and governmental oversight. There remains the option of black colleges, but sooner or later there comes a time when anyone and everyone must choose to address and (hopefully!) befriend ALL our fellow Americans. 

There is an answer to this nightmare at CSULA, and it's premised on the "community" being open to all students (there is a waiting list, however): 

It is my hope that all Asian, Latino, and white students truly interested in learning about the segment of our nation who happens to be African-American apply to live there.  Let diversity really work, and let enough non-black students attend so that the "safety" of an all-black-only student housing community is prevented ... because that "safety" can only lead to racial division (which we do NOT need!). 

The education of what it is like to grow up black in America is fundamental to all of us.  And ditto to learn what it is like to grow up Latino, Asian, and even white (which ranges from Italian to Greek to Jewish, just as "Latino" ranges from Mexican to Cuban to Peruvian). 

The medical group I work at, and the other medical groups I worked at previously, had black, Latino and Asian leaders ... but the ethnic background was de-emphasized in favor of excellence. 

There's a time when we need to talk, and to debate, and to learn.  Then there's a time to act, and to live, and to make a stand. 

I'll go with the time-tested and time-proven "melting pot" of what best makes our nation special.

The New Racism at CSULA is as repugnant and deserving of scorn as any Old Racism.  It stinks, and belongs on the trash heap of failed ideas as much as Jim Crow laws, Socialism, Fascism, and Communism.

I'll stick with MLK's ideals, and eschew the KKK ... in whatever hellish form any wannabe separatist, racist new trend may show up.  Black separatism is as pathetic as any White separatism. 

Hey, CSULA!  Show some real "character" and end this form of New Racism! 

• SEE OPPOSING POINT OF VIEW 

(Ken Alpern is 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 Mr. Alpern.

-cw

YES ON BLACK HOUSING--California State University of Los Angeles was right to establish black-only residence areas for its students.

In November 2015, the Black Student Union at Cal State LA wrote a letter to University President William A. Covino explaining feelings of victimization that they had experienced on campus.

The letter, found on the Afrikan Black Coalition’s website, reads, “Racially insensitive remarks, and micro-aggressions, by professors and students create a learning environment that is not conducive to the overall learning atmosphere. This presents unnecessary barriers to the success of Black students here on campus.”

In addition to the students’ accounts of racism on campus, the letter contains a list of demands to resolve some of the issues, including black-only housing options.

“WE DEMAND the creation and financial support of a CSLA housing space delegated for Black students and a full time Resident Director who can cater to the needs of Black students,” wrote members of Cal State LA’s Black Student Union.

After feeling victimized due to racial prejudices, members of the union were justified in their request for segregated housing.

The Mission Statement of Cal State LA’s Housing Services Program reads, “As a community of scholars in support of the University, we endeavor to build residents’ capacity for academic achievement, leadership and global citizenship.”

Housing Services cannot complete this goal if residents are feeling attacked in their own homes.

Members of the Black Student Union also conveyed the need for more affordable housing options.  In their letter to President Covino, the students said that Black-Only Housing options would provide African-American students with more affordable living options on campus.

Cal State made the right move by responding to the demands sensitively.

According to College Fix, the university is opening the Halisi Scholars Black Living-Learning Community for the first time during the 2016 Fall Semester. The community “focuses on academic excellence and learning experiences that are inclusive and non-discriminatory,” said Cal State LA spokesperson Robert Lopez in an email to College Fix.

The LA-based university is not the only college to offer segregated housing options for black students. UCONN, UC Berkley, and UC Davis have residence halls that provide black students the opportunity to form living arrangements with each other.

The addition of the Halisi Scholars Learning Community could contribute to awareness of the racially-charged problems that plague the campus. In addition to black-only housing, the Black Student Union demanded that all faculty and staff complete cultural competency training.

Perhaps the combination of the new living and learning options and increased cultural awareness on the university’s campus will provide a more inclusive atmosphere for all students.

• SEE OPPOSING POINT OF VIEW

(Mark Jones posts at Opposing Views  … where this piece originated.)

-cw 

GUEST COMMENTARY-After Marcie Edwards announced her retirement as General Manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Mayor Garcetti chose the department's Chief Operating Officer, David Wright, to replace her. 

Wright, who is currently serving as Interim General Manager, was an obvious choice in some respects. His experience in public utilities is deep. 

But DWP is a department with serious problems. Its workers and management are compensated significantly more than other city employees or other similar employees around the country. DWP is the eighth worst public utility in the United States, in terms of consumer satisfaction. 

Is Wright the best choice to lead DWP into its next era? Will he be the leader who can reform one of the city's most inefficient and hated institutions? The answers to those questions are unclear. 

Wright will need to be confirmed by the LA City Council in order to serve as permanent GM. This is a real opportunity for the Council to show their constituents they take DWP reform seriously. All too often the Council has served as a rubber stamp for the Mayor's policies and decisions. That can‘t happen here. 

Wright's track record and plans to improve the department need to be carefully scrutinized. He needs to honestly and thoroughly address five areas of questions.                                                                                                          

How is he planning to overhaul the massive bureaucracy of DWP to work for its ratepayers rather than its union and management? What are his plans for the department’s workforce numbers and future collective bargaining agreements? 

How will he increase the department's use of renewable energy and decrease its dependence on coal fired power plants? 

How will DWP respond to the drought if it continues another five years? Ten years? How can we continue to meet water reduction targets? 

What is his plan to improve customer satisfaction? How will he convince the public to trust DWP management? 

Finally, what can the City Council, the Mayor, and public expect in terms of a timeline for reform? What are the metrics and benchmarks he will use to measure success? 

This confirmation process should be a vigorous and thoughtful debate. No 15-0 vote after a one day hearing. No rubber stamping. This is serious, and it's an opportunity the City Council should not pass up.

(Mitchell Schwartz is candidate for Los Angeles Mayor 2017.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

JUST THE FACTS— I recently filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and LAPD for forcing LAPD Detectives and others to work on duty at Ram’s Football Games at the Coliseum. 

While the Ram’s are willing to pay for LAPD security inside the Coliseum, they are not willing to pay for the LAPD personnel working outside the Coliseum. 

There is no doubt that security is necessary to protect the fans and their vehicles as they park and pay up to $100 to a gas station operator or homeowner along Dr. Martin Luther King Blvd since parking is so limited at the Coliseum. LAPD detective personnel forced to work the detail on a working day means that they have to take a day off during the week and their cases are stacking up more and more. 

While the LAPD has run out of patrol officers to police the city and work the Coliseum, it has become necessary to assign detective personnel to work the Ram’s games for public safety. This is a gift of public funds and that is the basis of my lawsuit against the city. 

With the owner of the Rams, Mr. Stan Kroenke, worth an estimated $8 BILLION DOLLARS and the Rams valued at $3 BILLION DOLLARS, don’t feel sorry for Mr. Kroenke. Mr. Kroenke and the Rams need to pay for all the security at the Ram’s games at the Coliseum. I hope this matter is settled sooner rather than later for the benefit of the LAPD Personnel and citizens of Los Angeles.

●●

When Elected Officials pledge to improve our quality of life, there is a cost. That cost comes in various forms. It could be higher fees or taxes or bond measures. It all comes down to all of us paying more … one way or another. 

Here are 4 of the proposed Los Angeles City measures that you will be able to vote on when you go to the election booth on November 8, 2016.

1. I will start out with the pressing matter of the Homeless in our region. There is a Homeless Reduction and Prevention, Housing and Facilities Bond. This is Proposition H. 

2. Then there is the Affordable Housing and Labor Standards related to City Planning. This is Initiative Ordinance J. 

3. With our Water and Power rates increasing over the coming years, The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power wants to change the Commission’s structure. This is Charter Amendment R. 

4. The City of Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions impacting Airport Peace Officers. Charter Amendment S. 

These 4 Los Angeles Ballot Measures are allegedly created to improve the living conditions and services in Los Angeles. Will they accomplish that or just cost you more money in various forms of taxes and or fees. 

Now comes the good part. I will expose the truth of the measures and hopefully encourage you to vote to improve city services without taking more money out of your pocket. 

The first item is the Homeless Reduction and Prevention, Housing and Facilities Bond. Proposition H.     

This measure will provide a $1,200,000,000 General Obligation Bond to develop housing and facilities for the homeless and affordable housing for those at risk of homelessness. Using the Comprehensive Homeless Strategy that was adopted by the city on Feb 9, 2016, the housing need calls for 13,000 units of new housing including 10,000 units of supportive housing for the homeless in Los Angeles.   

The measure will require the following to gain the public trust, if that is possible. 

1. An Annual Plan that prioritizes funding for supportive housing and facilities and the necessary bond issuance to finance those development
2. Establish a Citizens Oversight and Administrative Oversight Committees to monitor the bond program. 
3. Produce an annual financial audit that will be available to the public. 

This measure will become effective if two-thirds of the voters support it. 

With Governor Brown unwilling to accept that Los Angeles has a Homeless Emergency as declared by L.A City leaders, and without state funds to help reduce the Homeless population in Los Angeles, is it necessary to float a Bond to the tune of $1,200,000,000 dollars to help reduce the homeless population? 

There is no doubt that the Homeless Population is increasing and something has to be done to address it. Will the 13,000 Homeless units be in your neighborhood or on your street? Are you willing to accept that? The latest homeless count in Los Angeles listed 26,000 as homeless with and 11% increase over last year. Will there be more and more homeless coming to Los Angeles as housing is provided to assist them? 

I will address the three other measures in my future articles.

(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. He writes Just the Facts for CityWatch. You can contact him at [email protected].)

-cw

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-If you want to understand the deeper politics of empowerment, especially when it comes to Neighborhood Councils in Los Angeles, please read on. 

This is the political essence of empowerment: no one who has power bothers to become empowered.

They are already the decision makers, what George W. Bush called the “deciders.” This is the essence of their governmental power. And, no one who has been “empowered” actually has any real power because they are still NOT the decision makers. 

EASTSIDER-As we move closer to November, the subject of DWP Reform is still front and center in the media, including CityWatch. The reform issue itself is serious business, for the simple reason that, win or lose, this will likely be the last DWP reform measure for a longtime to come. 

Sadly, most voters will only know about Charter Amendment RRR, as it is named, based on the YES and NO arguments in their in their Voter Guide. And that’s assuming that they even read the arguments. Truth is, very few people even read the LA Times anymore, and there is virtually no coverage at all about DWP Reform on the cable and network television “news” channels. Even the CityWatch audience, great as it is, consists of a drop in the bucket in terms of the total number of registered voters in Los Angeles for the November 8 General Election. 

The Ballot Arguments 

It’s a shame, because the arguments for and against Charter Amendment RRR, aren’t really helpful in trying to understand what the Amendment is about and what it really means. Remember we tend to forget that, by definition, ballot arguments are political arguments, not analysis. Persuasion, not truth, is their goal. Further, the names associated with the pro Arguments are a bit misleading, as they imply wholehearted endorsement. 

For example, you will see Marcie Edwards (General Manager of DWP), Mel Levine (DWP Board President) and Dr. Fred Pickel (Ratepayer Advocate) listed on the YES statement. If you look beyond the names, however, their appearance as YES proponents does not imply unqualified enthusiasm. Marcie Edwards was appointed by the Mayor, and so was Mel Levine, and they serve at his pleasure. So you will never know what they really think. Dr. Pickel was charged with drafting the YES ballot argument itself, so again, his name does not necessarily reflect what his personal opinion/beliefs may be. 

Not to belabor the point, but the Mayor appoints the entire DWP Board of Directors, guaranteeing that, notwithstanding what they might want or say in private, their input had little to do with the City Council sausage making machine that produced Charter Amendment RRR. 

I don’t know who actually penned the NO argument, but it’s also fairly misleading, as you can expect from those opposed to a ballot measure. For example, RRR is described as a “power grab by the DWP,” but the measure was in fact concocted by the LA City Council, not the DWP. Actually, you could argue that DWP reform started out because Councilmember Fuentes was looking for another full time gig as a DWP Commissioner. This because the unpopular “worst legislator in California” knew he would be voted out of office if he ran again for City Council. 

A Taste of the Real Language 

Truth is, if you actually read the ballot language, it is some 16 pages of highly technical, complex and often difficult to understand language. Even those of us who have tracked the evolution of the measure from the beginning get buried in the verbiage. There is no simple “yes” or “no” answer to the proposed Charter amendment. 

Contracting 

While those in opposition to the measure cry out that the City Council will lose all authority over contracts by the proposed DWP Board, the actual language doesn’t say this. 

In one of those statutory gobbledygook twists of the English language, Section 245 of the LA City Charter, details the City Council’s ability to veto Board actions, including those of the DWP. The subsection containing the DWP’s ability to use delegated authority to enter into contracts, lists the following as being exempt from Council review: 

(8) … “actions of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners regarding contracts involving consideration reasonably valued at less than an amount specified by ordinance...” 

In other words, the LA City Council gets to write whatever ordinance they want that sets the threshold for Council review of DWP contracts. That amount could be the same as it is now, or it could be X millions of dollars. Either way, the City Council, not the DWP Board, determines the amount. Not only that, if I remember correctly, it only takes about 90 days to revise any ordinance that the Council doesn’t like. (Just in case they get it wrong the first time.) 

Civil Service 

If you think the delegation language is ambiguous, check out the so-called “elimination of Civil Service for DWP” referred to in the ballot arguments. I will not quote the proposed Charter text here, since the language goes on for about two pages in the Resolution and makes the contracting language look like a masterpiece of clarity. For the brave, you can read the full text of City Charter Amendment RRR here.  Look starting at the end of page 11 for the text concerning civil service. 

Honestly, even reading the language is no help unless you’re an expert on public sector employment law. As I noted in a prior CityWatch article:

“As to the proposed amendment on personnel and hiring, I can only say that my hat’s off to an absolute masterpiece of obfuscation, persiflage, and all round mealy-mouth platitudes. Clearly, over the years Council President Herb Wesson has mastered the art of writing a lot of words while saying nothing, and he has really outdone himself in this one. 

“For example, the ‘salary setting authority’ ‘may’ waive some or all of the Civil Service requirements ‘pursuant to a legally binding collectively bargained MOU.’ Then there are further requirements that the ‘waivers’ would have to maintain ‘specific merit system standards.’ Finally the Council ‘may’ but doesn’t have to, even designate the new DWP Board as the ‘salary setting authority.’” 

Unlimited power to set Rate Increases

The opponents of the measure argue that the DWP and its “bureaucrats” will have the unfettered ability to jack up our rates with virtually no oversight. I guess that’s worse than the City Council’s ability to do the same? 

Anyhow, the language of Charter Amendment RRR doesn’t support this contention. Section 676 (Strategic Plan and Rate Setting) provides for a series of four year rate/revenue plans, which the Council can approve or disapprove. Once approved, anything that exceeds the parameters of the plan has to be approved by the Council and the Mayor. Further, “The City Council, by ordinance, may further define the policies, projects, programs and revenue requirements that shall be within the parameters of the Plan.” 

While I know that the courts have ruled that ballot arguments can lie like a rug, there are legitimate reasons to question Amendment RRR without engaging in hyperbole. 

Our DWP Committee Forum/Debate 

The complexity of DWP Reform was made apparent at our own DWP Committee meeting on Saturday September 3, 2016. At the impromptu forum, our very own Jack Humphreville was the moderator, and the panelists were Dr. Pickel (Ratepayer Advocate and author of the YES argument), Tony Wilkinson (DWP MOU Chair and participant in the dialogue that produced Amendment RRR), and Nate Holden, long time politician and former City Councilmember from 1987-2003, who is signatory to the NO argument on the measure. 

Even this highly knowledgeable group couldn’t agree on what the language of Charter Amendment RRR means. For example, the much ballyhooed crux of the reform measure has to do with how the city civil service system would be handled if the measure passes. Proponents admitted that there was no certainty as to the outcome or even if there would be any changes, and opponents said that the civil service system as we know it would be utterly destroyed if RRR passes. Dr. Pickel, of course, could not weigh in as we were in a City facility and he was author of the YES language. 

Let’s look at reality. Brian D’Arcy’s IBEW Local 18 is the 800-pound gorilla in the DWP World. This powerful union represents most of the Department’s employees and is not shy about flexing its muscle. Well, surprise, surprise: Local 18 is quietly in favor of the DWP Reform measure, although you would be hard pressed to find much in the way of public statements to that effect. The much smaller peripheral unions -- in terms of DWP membership -- are vigorously opposed to the measure, partly in fear that the idea could spread to the rest of the City, and partly because they lack the clout that Local 18 has with the Department. 

For further detail, and an alternate point of view, check out Julie Butcher’s recent CityWatch article describing the Charter Amendment as “Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!” Actually, her opposition to RRR is a much better read than the ballot arguments. 

The Takeaway 

Love it or hate it, the language of RRR is the necessarily flawed result of the LA City Council-Mayor-City Attorney meat grinder as they desperately try to shift the focus from their own incompetence in overseeing the DWP, the potential fiscal disaster if they lose the current lawsuit over the transfer fees annually extorted from DWP, and the huge ratepayer pushback over recent DWP rate increases. 

My personal belief is that this measure is poorly written and the language itself is difficult to read, much less understand. Given all the paid city staff available to write and vet the endless revisions, I think that this much obfuscation has to be deliberate. Further, I am unable to find the bag of goodies for us, the electorate, in Charter Amendment RRR that would motivate an actual ratepayer to vote yes.

Most voters I know, faced with a confusing ballot measure which will definitely have a long lasting impact on every ratepayer in the City of Los Angeles, will tend to throw their hands up in the air and simply vote NO! 

I find their cynicism to be well founded when it concerns City Hall and I agree with that sentiment.

(Tony Butka is an Eastside community activist, who has served on a neighborhood council, has a background in government and is a contributor to CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.) 

GELFAND’S WORLD--Want to chat with Hillary Clinton? You can have the pleasure this coming Tuesday at the home of Seth MacFarlane. You just have to contribute thirty-three thousand, four hundred dollars. Another opportunity for that chat is to have dinner at the home of Diane von Furstenberg and Barry Diller. That one will set you back a hundred thousand dollars per couple. If those are a little rich for your blood, there are a couple of conversations with Tim Kaine (he's the guy running for Vice President) for anything from $2700 to $100,000. The higher priced tickets (starting at ten thousand) get you into the home of Eva Longoria who, unlike most of the others, does not seem to live in Beverly Hills. (Photo above: Hillary Clinton and George Clooney at Clinton fundraiser.) 

Meanwhile, I was having the $2.99 special at Der Weinerschnitzel last night. If I had waited another day, I could have had the $1.29 special on the mini-sundae. 

I'm not sure how I ended up on the email address list for all those lavish parties, but the underlying message is a little depressing. I'm all in favor of Hillary going after Trump with an advertising blitz and putting up well funded campaign HQs all over Florida and Ohio. That's the necessity. But it's too bad that Hillary's companionship in California is limited to the few people who can buy it. 

I bring this recitation up for two reasons. One is to remind you of an old story from back in the George W. Bush administration. The other is to remind my fellow Californians that we are a third class state when it comes to electoral politics. 

Of course it was possible at one time (anytime last year, actually) to meet all of the candidates for merely the price of a cup of coffee. All you had to do was to live in New Hampshire. They came looking for you at the local breakfast hangout. The residents of New Hampshire seem to think they have a divine right to the candidates' time and an equally divine right to choose first. The fact that winning the New Hampshire primary has become the presidential kiss of death seems to be lost on them. Nevertheless, we got to read about one New Hampshire woman who had already met with ten presidential candidates, but remained unsure. 

Meanwhile, 48 other states are left in the lurch. I'm leaving Iowa out of the equation because their caucuses really do go first in the nation and at least for Republicans, the Iowa caucuses are even more of a kiss of death than the New Hampshire primary. 

Want a chance to meet the candidates on the same terms as the New Englanders? Let's set the California primary for the same day as the New Hampshire primary. We don't want to define a particular date in advance, because if we do, the state of New Hampshire will move theirs up a week or three (that's their historical pattern). Instead, let's just define our primary as taking place on or before the date of any and all other states. 

Or, if California voters protest that the additional election would cost a lot of money, let's just put the cost on the political parties by getting rid of our presidential primary and turning California into a caucus state. We could set our caucus date as equal to or in advance of any and all other state caucuses and primaries. 

Of course the Democratic National Committee will probably resist. Let's just ignore them. They'll ultimately come around. The 2020 primary season would be a good time to give the new system a tryout. President Clinton won't have much opposition, so we can treat the 2020 California caucuses as a dry run. Then in 2024, Californians will have the pleasure of going to the local Dennys to meet with candidates Kaine, Clinton the younger, and Jerry Brown. And you'll save that hundred thousand dollars. 

The story I promised you: Back when W was president, one of his top ranking officials was scheduled to do a fund raising dinner here in Los Angeles. It was a mere $2500 per person, but that's still quite a bit for us normal people. At the time, Kevin Drum was blogging for Washington Monthly, and he announced (a bit tongue in cheek, I have to imagine) that if you didn't want to pay to meet with the Bushites, you could join him for lunch at the Farmers Market over on Fairfax. The Farmers Market did extremely well that day, as most of the top bloggers of that era (and Arianna Huffington) showed up. And it was a ninety-nine point seven percent reduction in the price. 

Another dog that didn't bark 

School has started. This year, children entering the first grade in California are required to be up to date on their immunizations, and seventh graders are required to be up to date on whooping cough immunization. A new state law took away parents' rights to refuse vaccinations through what was known as a personal belief exemption. The PBE is no more. The only current exception is a medical condition that makes it unwise to give the injections. The law (SB277) was passed over the objections of a couple of thousand people who stalked the corridors of the state capitol and packed legislative hearings. 

What's interesting about the beginning of this school year is how little public outcry we have seen. I invite the reader to try to recall a television news story about an anti-vaccination protest demonstration this school term. The subject seems to have dropped off the radar. It's the old Sherlock Holmes line (now having become a cliche) of the dog that didn't bark. 

When SB277 was being debated, the opposition made it sound like it would be the imposition of fascism stirred and simmered with genocide. The more extreme opponents made a fetish of the term "vaccine injured" in their attempt to push the very-much-disproven argument that vaccines induce autism in some children. (Carefully done epidemiological studies following millions of children showed otherwise.) But still the angry parents flocked to Sacramento and carried out demonstrations in Los Angeles. Then the law was passed. The opponents tried to get the measure placed on the state ballot, but failed to gain the necessary number of signatures. 

Opponents vowed to continue the fight. They filed a lawsuit, but a federal judge denied a request for an injunction.  Of course the vaccine opponents pledge to continue, but the general tendency of the law is not with them.  

So what is actually going on in the real world of public education? Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) spokesperson Ellen Morgan points out that for one requirement -- that entering seventh graders have an up to date immunization against whooping cough -- the compliance is close to 100 percent. The department is following up on immunization records for entering first graders, which involves a lot of tedious analysis of written records, but the preliminary indication is that the district is doing extremely well. 

There may be a simple answer to why the most strident anti-vaccination people are remaining fairly quiet, at least in public. The text of SB277 allowed for a reasonable accommodation for those who cannot or should not be vaccinated. This includes some children who have immune deficiencies and some children who have undergone chemotherapy recently. But the law did not specify precise limits on the ability of doctors to write exemptions. As the law was being debated in Sacramento, some doctors began to circulate the message that they would bend over backwards to help anti-vaccination families get exemptions. A few doctors wrote fairly long lists of things that might induce them to write exemptions, ranging from allergies to vaccine reactions among distant relatives. 

Parents who are particularly anti-vaccine and can afford the medical bills can shop for a doctor who will write an exemption. That may be what is going on in California this year. Other parents who aren't so dogmatic probably scribbled out personal belief exemptions in the past, because they hadn't taken the time to get their kids to all the scheduled injections. School was starting, and filling out a form solved their problem. 

We will probably discover that a lot of students who would have presented PBEs in the past are now getting their injections. It's simply a matter of figuring out that it is easier to take your kids to an immunization clinic or to a pediatrician than to be forced to home school your children.

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

-cw

UPRIGHTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT-After the Superior Court ruled that Los Angeles’s planning and building officials had, for the past six years, been unlawfully refusing to follow the City’s ordinance regulating second dwelling units (SDUs) and ordered them to stop doing so, these same officials cooked up an ingenious scheme to circumvent the Court’s ruling. The Planning Department would prepare a report proposing that the City Council should simply repeal the SDU ordinance.    

The Department’s report, they schemed, would misleadingly assert that repeal was the only feasible choice. In fact, the Court identified three choices. It would confirm that repeal of the adopted standards would hardly make any difference. In fact, the existing standards are the only protections that LA’s single family neighborhoods have against “by right” SDU development. 

With repeal and the ensuing application of the state “default” standards, extra-large SDUs that are the same size as many primary residences could be built, and designated “hillside” areas would no longer be protected from SDU development. Importantly, the Department would “fast track” its repeal proposal, giving only the minimum required legal notice so that neighborhood councils and homeowner associations would not have sufficient time to inform themselves about the proposal, let alone develop formal positions and provide useful testimony and input. 

A clever but reprehensible scheme, and, fortunately, one that utterly failed. At its August 31 meeting, the City Council unanimously rejected the Department’s repeal proposal. The five Council members (Nury Martinez, David Ryu, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian and Bob Blumenfield) who co-authored the motion to reject the repeal proposal -- and their hardworking staffs -- deserve full credit for standing up to protect our neighborhoods. Council members Martinez, Ryu and Koretz, in particular, did the heaving lifting to obtain unanimous Council support, while Council President Herb Wesson and his staff forcefully weighed in to develop the consensus vote for neighborhood protection. 

LA’s neighborhood councils and homeowner associations showed they would not be bullied by the Department’s arrogant approach and that they can act quickly and effectively to call, write and meet with Council members. They played a key role in educating the Council about the vital importance of LA’s protective standards against the negative impacts of too-large and poorly located SDU development. They also developed convincing testimony that the Department’s report failed to consider the potentially serious cumulative negative impacts the repeal proposal would have on LA’s already stressed infrastructure. After all, repeal would be tantamount to rezoning all single family R-1 zones into R-2 zones, since the “default” standards would effectively allow, by right, a second, similarly sized residence on every lot.  

Altogether it was a very bad day in Council for the Planning Department. Not only did the Council firmly reject repeal, but the Council’s motion makes it clear that -- in stark contrast to the fast tracked, closed and slipshod process the Department followed for its repeal proposal -- it must now, looking to the future, initiate a new code amendment process to develop new SDU standards with a “comprehensive, open and transparent review” process. Take that, Planning Department! 

Further, in contrast to the Department’s proposal’s to use repeal to replace LA’s existing local standards with the very permissive “one size fits all” state “default” standards, the Council’s motion directs that the new LA standards must take into account “the unique characteristics of each geographic area of the city that may result in certain limitations and prohibitions” regarding SDU development. On the chin, Planning Department! 

And yet the Department’s hubris seems to know no bounds. When Council President Wesson was describing to the new Planning Director, Vince Bertoni, how its motion expects the Department to quickly bring back an “interim solution” that the Council can present to the Court and that the City can enforce until such time as the new code amendment is finalized, Bertoni appeared completely tone deaf. 

The Council motion called for the Department to prepare an administrative memorandum similar to the one issued by the Chief Zoning Administrator in 2003. In that memo, then CZA Robert Janovici had invoked the very limited power AB 1866 gives local governments to treat previous discretionary CUP procedures as “null and void” so that SDU permits can be issued “by right.” 

Since the City had successfully used the 2003 memo to administer SDU applications for seven years from 2003 to 2010 and since the memo had been explicitly approved by the Superior Court (and even identified by the Court as one of the Council’s three options going forward,) the task of preparing a similar memo to delete the discretionary CUP procedures should likely take about only an afternoon or two of work.   

Wesson pressed Bertoni about how long it would take before the new administrative memo would be presented to the Council. Not just a few days, Bertoni responded. He saw it as taking perhaps “several weeks.” Why? Because, Bertoni explained, he and his staff wanted to go behind-closed-doors with the City Attorney representatives in order to undertake a wide-ranging fishing expedition by which the Department would “pick and choose” which parts of the existing SDU standards appear to pass legal muster in the Department’s eyes. After all, the Department wouldn’t want to be administering illegal SDU standards. 

As an example of this “picking and choosing” effort, Bertoni focused on the adopted LA standard that allows SDUs only on lots that are at least 7,500 sq. ft. According to Bertoni, most LA single family lots are not this large, and in some geographic areas, only a relatively few lots meet this standard. Bertoni then ventured his opinion that, under state law, a city “can’t completely prohibit SDUs overall in the city or in geographical areas” unless it makes very detailed, hard-to-establish findings. Consequently, after some new fact research, the existing 7,500 sq. ft. standard may not make it into the CZA’s interim standards memo. 

Yipes! Does the new Planning Director really intend for us to take him seriously? If so, he shouldn’t be uttering sheer hokum. What’s wrong with it? 

It’s a fundamental part of the American legal system that bureaucrats do not have power to “pick and choose” which ordinance provisions they think are “illegal” and refuse to enforce them. They take an oath of office to defend and enforce the laws that have been enacted and, if they disagree with some of those laws, or have doubts about their legality, there are legally acceptable ways for that determination to be made, rather than issuing unilateral administrative fiats.  

AB 1866 gave local officials a very limited specific authority to declare “null and void” certain discretionary CUP procedural mechanisms, based on the unique circumstances that had led to enactment of AB 1866. 

In preparing the 2003 memorandum, then-CZA Janovici carefully limited his “null and void” determinations only to whether a provision was discretionary or mandatory, and not to undertaking a wide-ranging fishing expedition to question whether there might be any legal or policy issues regarding other standards. Bertoni has missed this fundamental point. 

Bertoni also has no idea what the legal standard is. State law explicitly provides cities like LA with authority to establish planning/environmental standards for determining where SDUs can and can’t be properly located, stating that a local second unit ordinance “may do any of the following: (A) designate areas within the jurisdiction… where second units may be permitted.  

The designations of areas may be based on criteria that may include but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units on traffic flow.” Bertoni’s obscure legal pronouncement seems wrongly derived from a completely different portion of the statute that forbids cities from “totally preclud[ing]” SDUs from their territorial boundaries altogether, unless they can make the findings in question.  

Ironically, Bertoni recently left employment as Pasadena’s Planning Director.  Pasadena has a 15,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size for SDUs, far greater than LA’s 7,500 sq. ft. size that he now claims presents legal difficulties. 

Once Bertoni and his colleagues open the question of excluding SDUs from LA lots smaller than 7,500 sq. ft., their attention would likely next turn to the adopted LA standard that precludes SDUs from designated “hillside” areas. 

This standard, too, would be suspect under Bertoni’s described legal criteria. Large areas of the Los Angeles are designated “hillside” for obvious environmental and planning reasons. But Bertoni and his team apparently believe that they have authority to determine that LA’s prohibition on SDUs in hillside areas is inconsistent with state law unless the difficult-to-make “findings” can be applied to those areas.  

The existing “hillside” SDU prohibition, of course, is highly valued by many neighborhood councils and homeowner associations, and there is no Department-proposed “pick and choose” exercise that would be more likely to raise their hackles. 

Director Bertoni misses the irony in his proposal to go behind-closed-doors to use some conjectured “lawfulness” criteria as the means of preparing the “interim solution” CZA memo. The Council has just vigorously yanked the Department’s chain for its ill-conceived closed, fast-tracked process followed in its repeal proposal, dictating instead that an open, thoughtful and transparent process be used to develop changes in the City’s SDU standards. It looks like the Council now needs to put Bertoni on a very short leash and quickly terminate his weeks-long “picking and choosing” fishing expedition approach for preparing the interim SDU administrative memo.

(Carlyle Hall is an environmental and land use lawyer in Los Angeles who founded the Center for Law in the Public Interest and litigated the well-known AB 283 litigation, in which the Superior Court ordered the City to rezone about one third of the properties within its territorial boundaries (an area the size of Chicago) to bring them into consistency with its 35 community plans. He also co-founded LA Neighbors in Action, which has recently been litigating with the City over its second dwelling unit policies and practices.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

NEW GEOGRAPHY--When comparing the health of state economies, we usually look at employment and incomes. Another critical indicator worth closer attention is where Americans choose to move, and the places they are leaving.

American history has been shaped by migration, from England to the Eastern seaboard, and later from the Atlantic Coast toward the Midwest, and later to the Pacific.

Our analysis of Internal Revenue Service data from 2014, the most recent available, give us an important snapshot of where Americans are moving now, and, equally important, a breakdown by income levels and age.

The Big Winners: The Sunbelt and Texas

To measure the states that are most attractive to Americans on the move, we developed an “attraction” ratio that measures the number of domestic in-migrants per 100 out-migrants. A state that has a rating of 100 would be perfectly balanced between those leaving and coming.

Overall, the biggest winner — both in absolute numbers and in our ranking —  is Texas. In 2014 the Lone Star State posted a remarkable 156 attraction ratio, gaining 229,000 more migrants than it lost, roughly twice as many as went to No. 3 Florida, which clocked an impressive 126.7 attraction ratio.

Most of the top gainers of domestic migrants are low-tax, low-regulation states, including No. 2 South Carolina, with an attraction ratio of 127.3, as well as No. 5 North Dakota, and No. 7 Nevada. These states generally have lower housing costs than the states losing the most migrants.

But it’s not simply a matter of taxes and regulations. There are three states in our top 10 with mixed reputations for red tape and taxes: Oregon (fourth), Colorado (sixth), and Washington (eighth). These are states that have thriving information  and professional business services sectors, which offer higher wages. And though these states have high housing costs, they are well below California’s. For Californians, the employment opportunities available in Seattle, Denver and Portland, combined with the prospect of huge profits from selling the house, makes moving particularly attractive.

The Biggest Losers

High costs go a long way to explain which states are losing the most migrants. At the top, or rather, the bottom of the list is New York State, which had an abysmal 65.4 attraction ratio in 2014 and lost by far the most net migrants, an astounding 126,000 people. Close behind was Illinois, a high tax, high regulation, and low growth disaster area. In 2014 the Land of Lincoln had an abysmal 67.2 attraction ratio, losing a net 82,000 domestic migrants.

Most of the other top people-exporting states are in the Northeast and Midwest. But the West, traditionally the magnet for newcomers, now also has some major losers, including Alaska (80.1), New Mexico (84.6) and Wyoming (88.6). The outflow for some of these western states may get worse, unless prices for natural resources like coal, oil, gas and minerals do not recover in the near future.

And then there is the big enchilada, California. For generations, the Golden State developed a reputation as the ultimate destination of choice for millions of Americans. No longer. Since 2000 the state has lost 1.75 million net domestic migrants, according to Census Bureau estimates. And even amid an economic recovery, the pattern of outmigration continued in 2014, with a loss of 57,900 people and an attraction ratio of 88.5, placing the Golden State 13th from the bottom, well behind longtime people exporters Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Louisiana. California was a net loser of domestic migrants in all age categories.

Where’s The Money Going?

Some analysts have claimed that the people leaving California are mostly poor while the more affluent are still coming. The 2014 IRS data shows something quite different. To be sure the Golden State, with its deindustrializing economy and high costs, is losing many people making under $50,000 a year, but it is also losing people earning over $75,000, with the lowest attractiveness ratios among those making between $100,000 and $200,000 annually, slightly less than those with incomes of $10,000 to $25,000.

Overall, many of the most affluent states are the ones hemorrhaging high-income earners the most rapidly. As in overall migration, New York sets the standard, with the highest outmigration of high income earners (defined as annual income over $200,000) relative to in-migrants (attraction ratio: 53). New York is followed closely by Illinois, the District of Columbia and New Jersey, which are all losing the over-$200,000-a-year crowd at a faster pace than California.

The big winners in terms of affluent migration tend to be historically poorer states, mainly in the Sun Belt and the Intermountain West. Florida has an attraction ratio for people earning over $200,000 a year of 223, the highest in the nation, followed by South Carolina, Montana, Idaho and North Carolina. Four of the states with the highest attraction rate among the highest income earners were in the top five in net in–migration of seniors, many of whom are taking nice nest eggs with them. South Carolina scored the highest, followed by Delaware, Idaho, North Carolina and Florida.

Where Young Adults And Families Are Headed

Much of the discussion about millennial migration tends to focus on high-cost, dense urban regions such as those that dominate New York, Massachusetts and, of course, California. Yet the IRS data tells us a very different story about migrants aged 26 to 34. Here it’s Texas in the lead, and by a wide margin, followed by Oregon, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, Maine, Florida and New Hampshire. Once again New York and Illinois stand out as the biggest losers in this age category.

Perhaps more important for the immediate future may be the migration of people at the peak of their careers, those aged 35 to 54. These are also the age cohorts most likely to be raising children. The top four are the same in both cohorts. Among the 35 to 44 age group, it’s Texas, followed by Florida,  South Carolina and North Dakota. Among the 45 to 54 cohort, Texas, followed by South Carolina, Florida and North Dakota.

Far more than the often anecdote-laden accounts seen in the media, the IRS data provides us with a glimpse of a demographic future dominated by those states that are either retirement havens or lower cost places that can compete with the traditional high-income economies such as Massachusetts, California, New York and New Jersey. As millennials age, along with their boomer parents, the data gives us a vision of a changing America which is likely to see a greater dispersal of population, income and demographic groups to many places that, like Texas, Florida or South Carolina, have been considered backwaters but now seem destined to emerge as shapers of our national future.

(Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com where this piece was first posted. Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international pubilc policy and demographics firm.)

-cw

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW-This past Friday, Brock Turner walked out of jail after serving just three months of a controversial six-month sentence, released under a law that credits inmates for time served. The now 21-year old former Stanford swimmer and Judge Aaron Persky who sentenced him were at the center of a swarming controversy after Persky’s light sentencing. 

Turner was found guilty in March of three felony counts: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, penetration of an intoxicated person and penetration of an unconscious person. Deputy District Attorney Alaleh Kianerci argued that Turner should receive a six-year sentence in state prison as he lacked remorse and because the victim was particularly vulnerable in her unconscious state. 

Perksy, however, chose to follow the probation department’s recommendation of probation and county jail time, citing the assailant’s lack of criminal history, his display of “sincere remorse” and that alcohol had impaired his judgement. “I think you have to take the whole picture in terms of what impact imprisonment has on a specific individual’s life. And the impact statements that have been [submitted] … [and the] character letters that have been submitted, do show a huge collateral consequence for Mr. Turner based on the conviction,” Persky wrote. 

Updates: 

Judge Persky 

Almost a million people signed a recall petition for the judge, while those supporting him argued that censoring judges for sentencing goes down a dangerous slope. Per Persky’s request, the judge has been transferred to the civil division by the end of September and will no longer hear criminal cases. 

Brock Turner 

Turner has returned to his family’s Dayton, Ohio home where his parents have been asking local police to monitor protests in their neighborhood. He will have five days from his release to register as a sex offender and must re-register every 90 days. His image, conviction information and address will be publicly available on Ohio’s sex offender registry. All those living within 1,250 feet of his address will be notified by mail of his presence and he will not be able to live within 1,000 feet of schools or playgrounds. 

Turner will also need to complete three years of probation and enter a sex offender management program for a minimum of one year but as long as three years. This is typically centered on group counseling led by psychologists based on cognitive behavior treatment to address anti-social behavior leading to distorted thinking about sex, relationships and empathy. 

As a registered sex offender, he must notify law enforcement of changes in address, employment, education schedule, vehicles, phone numbers, volunteer work and Internet access such as user names and passwords for emails, websites and social networking sites. Turner was expelled from Stanford and banned by USA Swimming for life.

Stanford University 

While Stanford University has issued an official statement just weeks following the rape that the university has participated in the investigation, encouraged bystanders to act and that the university had a zero tolerance for sexual assault and rape, the university has joined in on the focus of the case on intoxication as a “cause” of sexual assault. 

As of late August, the University has placed a ban on liquors 20 percent alcohol by volume (40 proof) at undergraduate gatherings. The ban extends to containers of hard-alcohol that are 750 ml or larger in student residences. Stanford director of the Office of Alcohol Policy and Education Ralph Castro called the new policy a “harm reduction strategy,” a tactic that many see as capitulating to Turner’s assessment that alcohol and the party culture are to blame for his assault, denying his personal responsibility. 

State Legislature Passes Mandatory Sentencing Bill in Response to Turner Case 

The State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 2888 last Monday, in direct response to the Turner sentencing. If signed by Governor Brown, the bill would expand the types of sexual assault convictions subject to mandatory sentencing. 

By amending the penal code, the bill would bar judges from granting probation for crimes that include two for which Turner had been convicted: sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object (his finger) and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. Under the new law, both would require mandatory three year prison sentences. 

The third crime of which Turner was convicted, intent to commit (penile) rape would be at the discretion of judges but would generally place a two-year prison sentence on the assailant. 

While mandatory sentencing may seem to be a solution to cases like Turner’s, the end result might not necessarily be the answer. Our justice system tends to skew in favor of those who can afford legal representation. Many criminal defendants are forced to plead out their cases due to inadequate funding for public defenders. Turner was able to mount a rigorous defense unavailable to many on trial. Mica Doctoroff of the ACLU Northern California regards AB 2888 as “hasty-policymaking” in response to a high profile case that would disproportionately impact communities of color. 

Another side to the sexual assault problem on college campuses and elsewhere is the low rate of conviction for sexual assaults. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), only about one in three sexual assault cases are reported to the police. Only 63 reports per 1,000 assaults lead to an arrest; 13 of those are referred to prosecutors and only seven lead to a felony conviction with only six rapists sentenced with incarceration. Thousands of rape kits go untested every year. 

The current fiscal environment means prosecutors are reluctant to take on cases that might not be a win. Even with mandatory minimum sentencing, rape and assault cases are still subject to prosecutorial and law enforcement discretion before the case ever makes it before a jury. While requiring mandatory minimum sentencing may seem to be an effective deterrent, the tactic may be less than ideal. 

We must continue the discussion about consent and improve training on sexual assault at police academies and law schools. We must continue work to change the culture that blames women for sexual assault. Teaching or encouraging women to follow safe practices and the culpability for rape and assault need to be seen as two separate issues. 

If a woman, for example, is intoxicated, that should not be seen as a green light to assault or mitigate the severity of the charge. We need to provide adequate funding to process rape kits and to conduct investigations, as well as support for the assaulted. Mandatory sentencing may not be the panacea it appears to be.

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

LABOR POLITICS-“The labor question, is, and for a long time must be, the paramount economic question in this country.” — Justice Louis Brandeis, 1904 

The labor question is back. After World War II, it seemed to many that widespread unionization and collective bargaining had made sure that the people who did the work in this country were getting a fair share of the wealth they created, and that through their unions working people had a substantial voice in the way our country was governed. 

But we live in a different world today. Only 11 percent of all American workers belong to a union, and less than 7 percent of private-sector workers are organized. Workers’ incomes have been stagnant for decades, and whatever gains have occurred in family income have gone entirely to the top of the wage structure, driving runaway inequality. At the same time, working people feel increasingly alienated from and betrayed by our political system. 

It wasn’t so long ago that very serious people denied that the economy was failing working people in America. But overwhelming data on inequality and wage stagnation marshalled by such economists as Emmanuel Saez, Thomas Piketty and the team at the Economic Policy Institute have changed the narrative. Now defenders of the status quo of runaway inequality have shifted from saying there isn’t a problem to saying that, while there is a problem, NOTHING CAN BE DONE. The new line from the very serious people is that runaway inequality and stagnant wages are somehow the result of the unstoppable natural forces of technological change and globalization. 

There are two reasons to be suspicious of those who move so easily from denial to despair. First, basic economic theory tells us that when productivity rises, wages should rise as well. Technological progress should make the average person better off, not worse off. Second, globalization and technological change are not confined to English-speaking countries — yet since 1980 the United States and the United Kingdom have been total outliers in terms of wage stagnation and inequality among advanced societies. 

The data strongly supports what the American people say that they believe in poll after poll — that elites rigged the economic rules in our society to benefit themselves. That the United States adopted public policies — labor laws, trade rules, fiscal and monetary policies, immigration policies and tax policies — that ensured technological progress and globalization would benefit only a small number of Americans. 

The most dangerous moment for a democracy is if the people who do the work conclude they live in a democracy in name only. 

And so the labor question is back, and that question is: How can the people who do the work in America receive a fair share of the wealth we create, and how can our voices be heard in our politics, our society and our culture? 

The reason this question was so important to Justice Brandeis and at least as important to America today is that when working people are economically exploited and socially and politically marginalized, our economy and our society do not work. Our economy stagnates, our competitive position deteriorates and our politics become prey to purveyors of extremism and hate. And the most dangerous moment for a democracy is if the people who do the work conclude they live in a democracy in name only, where the ballot box is just window dressing for a process controlled by the rich. 

The labor question pervades our public policy debates — but if you don’t listen carefully, you might miss it. When you hear economists bemoan “secular stagnation” and “demand shortfalls,” they are talking about the labor question. They are talking about stagnant wages and loss of worker bargaining power. 

When you hear business leaders and engineers talk about the crisis in infrastructure and education — about how no one can find the political will to raise the taxes to fund the investments we must make to be competitive — they may not know it but they are talking about the labor question. Throughout modern history, in every successful society, organized workers provide the political power to drive public investment. 

When you hear business leaders complain they can’t find skilled workers, and can’t afford to train their workforces, they, too, are talking about the labor question. Individual employers never train their workers adequately — it’s not economically rational to do it. Where workers are organized, together with their employers they can solve the collective action problem of training. 

That’s how it still works today in highly unionized parts of our economy, and that’s how it works in countries that compete with us like Germany. But increasingly, as private-sector union density falls, adequate training is the exception rather than the rule. 

When you hear concern from all quarters about rising extremism and hate, you are hearing a conversation about the labor question. 

In America, the labor question has always been intertwined with issues of race and gender. Sometimes people talk as if the working class is made up of white men. The reality is that the majority of people in jobs paying less than the median wage are women and people of color, and the economic devastation in deindustrialized predominantly African-American communities like St. Louis and Baltimore is part of the labor question, as is the denial of rights to undocumented workers.

And so when you hear concern from all quarters about rising extremism and hate, you are hearing a conversation about the labor question. 

When working people organize around their economic interests, and when public policy supports working people having an independent voice in our politics and our society — then working people themselves can ensure we are not left behind, that our issues are heard and addressed.

When we are marginalized, ignored and silenced, some of us become desperate, like anyone else would. Some of us give up on our democratic system, and some of us are tempted to turn on each other. The labor question is not just economics. Solving it is fundamental to the health of our democracy. 

The 20^th century was called the “American Century” fundamentally because we addressed the labor question democratically and we did it first — propelling the US out of the Great Depression and enabling us to be the Arsenal of Democracy.  Our 20^th-century economic competitors were torn apart by the social conflicts associated with the labor question, and they became the battlefields of World War II. 

In the 21^st-century global economy, those countries that can solve the labor question will be able to sustain broad-based prosperity. Those that do not will face social instability and national decline.

The labor question has an answer. When the people who do the work in our society have collective voice through unions — democratically run workplace organizations — then working people have a way of being heard when the big decisions get made in the workplace and in public life. 

But the labor question has many false answers as well. In this presidential election year of 2016, all the false answers are on display — racism, faith in the benevolence of the super rich, and appeals to return to the social order of the past. And so are the real answers — standing up to those who would divide us, bringing working people together, strengthening worker bargaining power and worker voice, and using that voice and that power to drive investment in our nation’s future. The choice could not be clearer or more urgent.

(Damon A. Silvers is the Director of Policy and Special Counsel for the AFL-CIO. Published first at BillMoyers.com. This was also published by CommonDreams.org.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

CORRUPTION WATCH-Eric Michael Garcetti is the City of Los Angeles’ current mayor. Garcetti was first inflicted upon us in 2001, as councilmember for Hollywood’s Council District 13. Starting in 2006, Garcetti was President of the City Council until 2012, when he stepped down to run for Mayor. Thus, Eric Garcetti is LA’s longest serving elected official. 

When Garcetti arrived, Los Angeles was progressive and full of hope. It was the #1 destination city in the entire nation. Now, Los Angeles is more than half way through its second decade of decline. We have gone from the most desirable urban place to live to the least desirable. 

For some reason, Angelenos fail to understand the connection between massive corruption and LA's shrinking influence in American life. They are oblivious to the fact that corruption drives away business. When businesses leave, we lose workers; and with the departure of professional and middle class business workers, our tax base suffers. 

Employers know what is happening, even though Angelenos are sleep walking through life. One reason for the different perceptions is that most employers look at mathematics when making decisions. Angelenos, on the other hand, look at traffic. If traffic is bearable, then things must be OK. 

Angelenos who realize that LA has the worse traffic -- not only in America but also Europe -- lull themselves into complacency thinking that more subways will solve traffic congestion. 

What Angelenos do not realize is that traffic improves when people move away and the type of people we lose is very important. Los Angeles no longer attracts the smartest and brightest in the leading sectors of the economy. We have fallen to #60. Our low ranking is not due just to our density and high cost of living. San Francisco places #2 and it, too, is dense with a high cost of living. New York ranks #14 and Chicago is #43. Yes, with its cold, wind, snow, and incessant murders, Chicago still beats out LA. Check out this recent article on NewGeography.com by Joel Kotkin and Michael Shires. 

When employers look at an urban area, they assess a multitude of factors but they always project decades ahead. They do not want to relocate again in 10 to 20 years. They seek stability and permanence. They want a place to "bet on" and Los Angeles is a bad bet! 

We have a mayor and city council that wage war on the vital facets of the good life which all significant businesses need in order to attract and retain highly qualified employers: (1) decent single family homes and (3) decent schools. 

After fifteen years of Garcetti, we need a new mayor. The next mayoral election is March 2017, which in political life is just around the corner. At that time, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative will also be on the ballot so that we can all focus on Garcetti’s manic obsession to Manhattanize Los Angeles. 

But who could run? Yikes! There is no one. Here are three who have bellied up to the bar. 

First, we have Michael Schwartz. Ho hum, there is really nothing bad to say about Michael. 

Second, we have YJ Draiman, who is a curious person. His son, David’s, father was born in Israel, but apparently YJ was not. How does that work? Enough with all the closets already. Oh yes, here’s what YJ says about himself: “YJ Draiman is a former Real Estate developer with over 20 years’ experience; he has worked extensively in gentrifying neighborhoods.” Wow, with the NII and YI on the same ballot, this should make the election interesting. (NII = Neighborhood Integrity Initiative to slow down development corruptionism in LA.) 

Third running is Steve Barr, who has apparently confused the City Council with the School Board. Why? 

The one thing these three candidates have in common is that none of them will be LA’s next mayor. That leaves us searching the LA City Council for someone. 

Bonin? A nice guy who also believes that LA should become Manhattan and that an annual subway deficit of $8 billion would be a good idea. He wants more bike lanes in major thoroughfares to maximize the air pollution that cyclists inhale and to further aggravate traffic congestion. 

Koretz? He’s been around and has too much baggage. 

Krekorian? He tore down Marilyn Monroe’s home rather than let it be moved to a safe place. He’s dead meat. 

What could a new mayor do? 

Facing the LA City Council which operates as a criminal enterprise in violation of Penal Code § 86, the mayor has very little power. He can veto projects but with “unanimous voting,” anything can be passed. He can appoint certain department heads, but developers will still purchase bogus EIRs which the City Council will approve. 

The only real power a new mayor would have is what Teddy Roosevelt used so well -- the bully pulpit. A new mayor would have the platform to advocate for reform. The City Council structure needs to be re-done so that vote trading is structurally impossible. The mayor could place “Quality of Life” as Los Angeles’ top priority rather than its current goal: the City’s Manhattanization and developers’ profits. 

No mayoral candidate is thinking of making Quality of Life even a factor in the City’s decisions and virtually no Angeleno is bold enough to set forth the radical idea that people matter. Instead, there is near universal agreement that we need to destroy the homes of poor people and give billions of dollars to real estate developers. Welcome to favela LA.

(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. -cw

THE BROWN ACT IS WRONG -- According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. House of Representatives has met behind closed doors four times during the past 186 years—in 1979, 1980, 1983, and 2008.  That’s about one closed session per half-century. By contrast, the LA City Council and the LA County Board of Supervisors average about one closed session per week. 

Since August 1st, the City Council has placed nineteen items on its closed-session agenda. This coming week the Board of Supervisors will meet behind closed doors three times in a 24 hour period. Why all the secrecy?  

Congress managed to keep its debate open during both World Wars. All it takes to send our local leaders into the bunker is an update from their real estate agent. Why? Because the Brown Act permits them to do so? 

The truth is that the Brown Act is wrong to allow for any exceptions to California’s open meeting requirements. The sky will not fall if ‘pending litigation’ or ‘real estate acquisitions’ or any of the other issues deemed top-secret by the Brown Act are discussed during open sessions of the City Council or County Board of Supervisors. On the contrary, doing away with closed-session meetings will strike a blow to those who would abuse the public’s trust. 

Into closed-session is the first place the LA City Council scurried in 2012 upon learning from HUD that scores of developers under the City’s purview were defrauding taxpayers, by taking federal money designated for the inclusion in affordable housing projects of apartments for people with disabilities, and then willfully neglecting to build those apartments.  

Disabled residents reported going to apartment buildings that were advertised as accessible, according to the LA Times, only to find they weren’t. HUD warned the Council that it had ten days to agree to voluntary corrective compliance or face possible federal enforcement action. 

Rather than comply with HUD’s directive, the City Council embarked on a four year legal misadventure which entailed four major lawsuits, including the one recently settled by the city for $200 million ($20 million of which is going to the plaintiff’s attorneys). All this in addition to at least $6 million in legal bills paid to the white-shoe law firm of Byrne and Nixon, not to mention the in-house costs to the City Attorney’s office.   

This entire horror story played-out in a series of closed-session meetings which denied the public its right to weigh in on the matter.  

Would most Angelenos have wanted the City Council to comply with the original directive from HUD instead of fighting it in court? Would they have considered that the prudent and ethical thing to do? It’s not for us to say, but it wasn’t for the City Council to say either back in 2012. By going into closed-session and deciding what they thought was best for the public, the City Council cheated Angelenos. 

What’s more, it wasn’t just one set of closed-session meetings by which the Council waged its legal war. As we will discuss in a future article, the Council used a series of underhanded tricks to conceal the huge amounts of money it was pouring into its legal battle. Instead of keeping all actions of the Council in the matter in one Council file, they dispersed it into at least five separate files—all under different names, making it virtually impossible for the public to know what was going on.   

It’s time to put an end to closed-session meetings.

(Eric Preven is a CityWatch contributor and a Studio City based writer-producer and public advocate for better transparency in local government. He was a candidate in the 2015 election for Los Angeles City Council, 2nd District. Joshua Preven is a CityWatch contributor and a teacher who lives in Los Angeles.)-cw

THE GUSS REPORT--Is Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti willing to play dirty pool in order to get significant union money and votes for his re-election as well as for his anticipated future campaigns for either Governor or Senator? (Photo above left: Mayor Garcetti) 

Does anyone doubt that the Los Angeles Times – formerly known as the newspaper of record for Southern California – is willing to aid and abet him in that mission? 

It certainly seems so in reading the Times’ August 24^th article by Paul Pringle and Ben Welsh entitled “LAFD Fire Marshal Steps Down after Criticism that He Cut Corners on Safety.”   

Taken at face value the Times made it seem that that man, John Vidovich, a 35-year Los Angeles City Fire Department Deputy Chief assigned to the Fire Prevention Bureau is an incompetent who put firefighters at-risk until the vast majority of them banded together to demand his ouster. 

But you know that the story could never be that simple. Life dictates that it isn’t. 

The Pringle and Welsh story cries out with questions: 

1. What did you find out when you investigated whether the Firefighters’ Union was upset because the waste, fraud and abuse exposed by Vidovich embarrassed some of its members, and efficiencies he recommended cut down on overtime that, while saving taxpayers’ money, cost the firefighters overtime that in some cases could be as much as $100,000 per year each? 

You did investigate that, didn’t you? 

2. You wrote that the Times’ investigation found about 6,800 buildings were months or even years overdue for an inspection.   Where in your article did you state that, when Vidovich first took over the position, that figure was much higher…10,000 buildings with overdue inspections, and that his efforts in just two years cut that original figure down by 32%? 

It’s kind of relevant, yes? 

3. You wrote “the union that represents inspectors and other firefighters earlier this year voted to approve a resolution of ‘no confidence’ in Vidovich.”   Exactly how many people (of the 3,100 firefighters in the department) took part in that vote, and exactly how many of them voted “no confidence?” 

Let’s just say that the room in which the vote allegedly took place is rather small. 

4. How did the union’s donation of $350,000 to Mayor Garcetti’s re-election campaign, and to those of Councilmembers up-for-re-election, impact the decision to move Vidovich? The donation announcement was posted verrrry shortly after the decision to move him was announced. 

5. Did you investigate whether any Councilmembers came to Vidovich’s defense only to be threatened by the union with the loss of their share of those campaign donations funds if he or she did not shut their mouth? 

Call me if you want to discuss specifics on this. 

6. You wrote “through a department spokesman, Vidovich and (Fire Chief) Terrazas declined interview requests.”What effort did you make to contact them directly to determine if that is true? 

7. If City Hall was willing to paint Vidovich as an incompetent, did you determine whether he received any awards for his work – like innovation awards – to determine whether or not he was being railroaded? 

8. Did you receive a copy of the letter written to Chief Terrazas supporting Vidovich, signed by six of his fellow LAFD Captains? Isn’t this relevant to your story, or does balance, fairness and accuracy in journalism not come into play anymore? 

9. What exactly transpired when the LAFD recently sat down with the major studios because they felt they were being over-assigned uniformed inspectors on sets that do not have any pyrotechnics when a walk-thru inspection would be sufficient? 

10. And how exactly did the union rank and file respond when it was no longer allowed to work on its Paid Days Off, a Vidovich recommendation approved by Terrazas, so that they could bank those days and get time-and-a-half from the taxpayers? 

And then there are the documents which expose the sheer fraud … like the one in which an inspector allegedly billed for hours for inspecting a building that was torn down years prior? Wouldn’t it be a good time to look closer at this story and see whether what you were fed by Garcetti and his minions is truthful? 

It would appear the full Fire Marshall Vidovich story has yet to be told. Consider this an invitation to stay tuned.

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a writer and a CityWatch, Huffington Post and KFI-AM640 contributor. He blogs on humane issues at ericgarcetti.blogspot.com/ and can be reached at @TheGussReport. Opinions he expresses are not necessarily those of CityWatch.)

-cw

CORRUPTION WATCH-Ending the “corruptionism” at the Los Angeles City Council is very easy – in theory. Enforce Penal Code § 86 which criminalizes vote trading in a city council. Los Angeles City Council unanimously approves all construction projects 99.9% of the time. (There is no statistical difference between 99.9% and 100% when we are talking about thousands of votes over spanning more than a decade.) Thus, the District Attorney, the US Attorney or the State’s Attorney General could all file suit to stop the practice. 

Because law enforcement has the power to subpoena records and compel people to provide evidence beyond what a regular attorney can do in a Citizens Lawsuit, it would be very easy to gather the evidence to show that the Los Angeles City Councilmembers operate by a criminal vote trading agreement not to vote “No” on a construction project from another district. 

Councilmembers may rest assured, however, that no law enforcement officer will ever inquire into the vote trading at Los Angeles City Council. Just because Jackie Lacey may act as if she is deaf, dumb and blind does not mean she does not know what is occurring. Good government in Los Angeles is political suicide, and all the politicians place their own personal well-being far, far ahead of any civic duty. 

Thus, it would be extreme political naivete to think that any law enforcement officer will ever take any action against this criminal nature exhibited by the Los Angeles City Council. 

That leaves Angelenos with two options. (1) Spontaneous change in the people’s consciousness such as occurred when the Soviet Union collapsed or (2) A Citizens Lawsuit. 

No Spontaneous Change of Consciousness 

There will be no spontaneous change in consciousness since the segment of the population with the biggest stake in reform has a much easier solution – it moves away. 

All the data show that the emerging middle class is choosing to leave Los Angeles. They know that they can secure a better job and a much higher standard of living almost anywhere else in the nation than in LA. For example, a 3-bedroom home in Los Angeles is $850,000 with a median family income of $55,909.00 and a 3-bedroom home in Austin, Texas is $290,000 with a median family income $52,431.00. 

The City of Los Angeles has fallen to #60 of desirable places for professionals and business service workers to live, which explains why more people leave Los Angeles each year than come here. There will be no change in the area’s consciousness when the replacement middle class for the retiring Baby Boomers are fleeing Los Angeles for almost anywhere else in the nation. It is easier and wiser to switch than to fight. 

Citizens Lawsuit Is the Only Hope 

The sole hope to root out corruptionism is via a Citizens Lawsuit. It is the essence of simplicity. If a government agency like a city council violates a public duty, any citizen can sue to have a court enjoin the violation of the public duty. Most people, except Superior Court judges, believe that everyone has a public duty not to violate the law. Thus, in theory, it should be easy for any citizen to have a judge enjoin the Mutual Bribery which runs the Los Angeles City Council. 

But there is one obstacle. The criminal enterprise which we call the Los Angeles City Council exists within a criminogenic political system. Not only is the city council a criminal enterprise, but all of the local, state and federal law enforcement agencies including the courts also operate within a criminogenic state of mind. According to a three judge panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California State judiciary has suffered an epidemic of misconduct. In one case before them, they had a prosecutor who had committed perjury in order to have a defendant convicted of a crime, but the three judges did not focus on that one prosecutor with the standard “one rotten apple” lament. Rather, they said that the California court system had an epidemic of attorney misconduct because the judges habitually turn a blind eye to misconduct. In brief, the judiciary itself was corrupt. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! 

It will be interesting to see what gibberish the state judiciary provides to turn its blind eye to Los Angeles City Council’s decade of vote trading. One should realize the teleological nature of the state courts. They are oriented towards a particular goal and all their actions are devised to achieve that goal. In California court, that objective is the perpetuation of its own power. If facts or law will achieve the desire result, then the court uses the facts and law, but if the facts and law do not reach the pre-ordained outcome, the facts and/or law are changed. 

Here are a few nonsensical things we can anticipate: 

(1) A citizen may not bring a criminal lawsuit. 

Duh, a citizen lawsuit is not a criminal lawsuit, making the state irrelevant. A citizen’s lawsuit does not seek any criminal penalties against any councilmember. The violation of the penal code shows that the city council is violating a public duty. There is no gibberish too misleading for a court not to whole heartedly adopt it. 

(2) Councilmembers have no public duty to follow the law. 

Some judges believe that due to some unarticulated reason, city councilmembers have no duty to follow the law. The judges have to take this ludicrous position since as soon as they admit that there is a duty to follow the law, they admit that the councilmembers need to be enjoined from vote trading. 

(3) The unanimous voting is coincidental. 

There are about 3,000 council votes per year and 99.9% of the time, they approve an agenda item unanimously. They have been unanimously approving every construction project for over ten years. Thus, using the analogy of flipping a coin a 100 times seriously understates the statistics in the City’s favor. Rather than 100 coin flips, we are actually talking about 39,970 coin flips where it came up heads. 

The chances for a flipping a coin 100 times and coming up heads each time is once in every 1,000 billion billion billion times. Let’s remember that, for this city council, we would have to simultaneously flip several coins as there are 15 councilmembers and 11 is a quorum. The chances of that happening are less than once in every 1,000 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion. For short hand, let’s just say, 1/ ∞. “Yes, your honor is right. A mere coincidence.” 

(4) Separation of Powers means the courts may not intervene in the city council business. 

Under this theory, which the City of Los Angeles advances, no court may look at how the City of Los Angeles conducts its business. It does not matter if the City violates state laws because the courts may not interfere in how the city conducts its business. If this were true, then why would the State bother to make any laws? Why does Penal Code, § 86 exist? The fancy word the judges use to evade their duty is “justiciable.” The behavior of city councils is “non-justiciable.” 

On a practical level, does anyone expect any judge to interfere with this on-going multi-billion dollar scam? Any admission now that the city council engages in vote trading means that the practice has been happening for over a decade. What judge would make such a ruling? If the GOP can make such a fuss over a private email server, one can imagine what would happen if any judge hinted that the Los Angeles City Council, which functions as an adjunct of the Democratic Party, has been running a criminal enterprise the entire time that Obama has been President. (Disclosure: author is registered Democrat.] 

What’s next? 

Do not expect the great scam to stop now. 

Here’s the great scam that Garcetti and his minions are running on Angelenos right now: They believe that if the City spends billions of tax dollars constructing high-rise projects which no one wants then that spending will prop up Los Angeles’ economy. If they were spending the billions of dollars to make Los Angeles more productive, then the scam could work, but the city is squandering the hundreds of billions of dollars on 19^th and 20^th Century technology. This makes it certain that Los Angeles will never enter the 21^st Century. The future is not choo-choo-trains and skyscrapers; it’s decentralization and TelePresence ©, aka Virtual Presence ©. 

By destroying all the rent-controlled properties, Garcetti thinks that he can justify the need raise billions of tax dollars in order to build “affordable housing.” If the November ballot “affordable housing” measure passes, it will raise property taxes over $2 billion! 

We already know the result of this construction – empty units. Since more people leave LA than come here, our housing supply increases each day even if we build nothing. 

The poor also realize that life is better in Dallas, Nashville or Arizona. As all these other areas of the country become opportunity centers, they will attract not only the more educated middle class, but also the less educated. During the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, it was not only the middle class who fled the farm lands. When life is bad for the middle class, it’s worse for the poor. 

The Great Subway-Bicycle Delusion. 

Garcetti labors under the delusion that subways, fixed-rail transit and bicycles will save our transportation problems. The data show otherwise: People hate the subways and seldom use the buses. According to Google, for example, it takes 19 minutes to go from Los Feliz to Sherman Oaks via car and 1 hour and 1 minute by bus. Thus, it takes three times as long by bus and that is without counting the time it takes to walk to the bus stop and to the destination. 

People avoid mass transit by one of two methods: (1) buying a car, (2) moving away from LA. When a family moves away from LA, let’s say to Austin, Texas, it can afford to buy both a home and two cars for less than the cost of one home in LA. 

Knowing these facts, the Garcetti Administration wants to load up Angelenos with hundreds of billions of debt with its housing and transportation measures on the ballot in November.   

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and corruption destroys. There is no Lone Ranger, no Superman, no White Knight to save Los Angeles. We are engulfed in an all- encompassing criminogenic culture where the powerful will suck away every last cent needed to run a modern city until Los Angeles becomes America’s first favela.

(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

When we speak of legalizing marijuana we are really speaking of the Great Cannabis Debate. Come November, Californians will vote on Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which could bring safety and security for both cannabis consumers and farmers, and the sales taxes accrued could provide much-needed revenue to our state. Let’s look at a short list of possible unforeseen ramifications. 

MIRISCH ON ‘M’--In an article on its propaganda website, eerily named “The Source,” Metro boasts: “It’s official: Measure M heads to November ballot.” The subhead makes the spin clearer: “More Mobility, Movement, Motion, Maintenance focus of Metro’s Sales Tax Ballot Measure.”  

Of course, that’s how Metro is going to try to hard-sell the new Forever Tax.  

Quite frankly, it would be more appropriate to have written that the “M” in Measure M stands for: 

More Money, Mismanagement, Malfeasance and Misinformation make up Metro’s Sales Tax Ballot Measure. 

As a transit advocate for a forward-thinking, future-oriented, fully-integrated transit system which democratizes public transportation by providing point-to-point, on demand mobility, I’m going to go into a level of detail which may be a bit of inside baseball for those who basically just want to know whether they should support Metro’s Forever Tax or not. 

For those who just want the down and dirty, I’m going to start this essay with a summary of bullet points.

Metro is claiming the “M” in Measure M stands for “Mobility, Movement, Motion, Maintenance.” It actually stands for: More Money, Mismanagement, Malfeasance and Misinformation.

More Money

• Measure M is a Forever Tax, which will generate hundreds of billions of dollars.

• Measure M effectively doubles (after the expiration of Measure R) our countywide transportation tax. It raises our county sales tax to 10% or more in parts of the county, among the highest in the nation.
  
• Sales tax is a notoriously regressive tax, which disproportionally impacts the poorest and most vulnerable among us.
  
• The way the plan has been put together to garner political support rather than, first and foremost, to advance mobility, Metro seems more concerned with passing the tax than mobility itself.
  Mismanagement
  
• Metro has increased its operating budget successively to $5.6 billion, yet is suffering from a “ridership slump” (LA Times).
  
• Metro offers no viable first/last mile solutions, which are crucial for a first-class mobility system.
  
• Measure M’s proposed projects include politically-motivated projects at the expense of mobility-motivated ones. The proposed Sepulveda Pass Tunnel is the poster-child for wasteful spending.
  
• Metro’s mantra seems to be: “Overpromise and underdeliver.” In attempting to be all things to all people, they are making contradictory promises to various parts of the county in order to try to win support for the Forever Tax.
  
• Measure M’s funding mechanisms are inherently unfair: the measure would make important parts of the county, such as the Gateway Cities and the South Bay, wait decades for much-needed infrastructure upgrades.
  
  Malfeasance 

• Metro continues to act like it is under the Consent Decree, as it was for over a decade, because its Measure M spending plan aggravates social injustice while increasing racial discrimination. This is why the Bus Riders’ Union and other civil rights organizations strongly oppose the measure.
  
• Metro’s safety record is questionable. The Blue Line is one of the most dangerous and deadly commuter light rail lines in the country.
  
• The recently opened Expo Line covers 15.2 miles from Santa Monica to Downtown LA. It takes close to an hour. This is expensive, inefficient, unmodern transportation, which provides questionable value-for-taxpayer-dollars.
  
• A federal judge recent ruled that Metro has acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner in planning transit routes, and has violated federal environmental law. Metro painted the ruling as a “victory,” because the judge did not vacate the record of decision (ROD) and allowed Metro to continue to seek federal grant funding. In other words, Metro only cares about the money.
  
• Metro’s corporate governance is rigged and undemocratic. Residents of 62% of the county are underrepresented on the Metro board, while the city of LA has a bloc which gives it outsized voting power. As the board makes the spending decisions about all funds - including, ultimately, how the Measure M funds would be spent — the principle of “one person/one vote” needs to be adhered to before Metro is given more money.
  
  Misinformation 

• The idea that passing Measure M and giving Metro the proceeds of the Forever Tax will “solve traffic problems” is a myth. Metro’s name for Measure M, “the Los Angeles County Traffic Improvement Plan” is nothing if not deceptive. 
  
• Metro has raised taxes three times, increased spending significantly, yet ridership has not increased. Traffic has not improved.
  
• Measure M is not a “ground up” tax which deserves support from the residents of LA County. It is a cynical political ploy which aims at spreading transit crumbs throughout the County with the primary goal of winning votes, not increasing mobility.
  
• Metro’s plan is backwards-looking rather than forwards-thinking. We need to better take advantage of advances in transportation technology, including the rapid development of autonomous vehicles, to create an integrated transportation system which offers all residents of the county a first-choice for mobility and which democratizes public transportation. 

Who should favor Measure M, the Forever Tax? 

Corporate welfare fans; crony capitalists; politicians who are looking for campaign cash and favors; commuters who are happy with second class service; transportation nostalgiacs who don’t feel advances in transportation technology should be integrated into a modern transit system; people who don’t mind funding agencies who have repeatedly broken past promises.

Who should oppose Measure M, the Forever Tax? 

People concerned with social justice and/or fiscal responsibility; people who want to reduce racial discrimination; those who want a public transportation system for everyone; people who want a forward-thinking, visionary transportation system with the goal of point-to-point on-demand mobility within public transportation; people who doen’t trust massive governmental agencies with a documented record of poor decision-making; those who feel that forever is a long, long time...

Who benefits most?  

• The Transportation/Infrastructure Industrial Complex: politically connected corporations like Parsons Brinckerhoff & Co. ; construction companies; engineering companies; construction unions.
  
• Developers who use transit as an excuse to overdevelop and an alibi to densify.
  
• “Mobility” advocacy and booster organizations, who receive funding from the Transportation/Infrastructure Industrial Complex. 
  
• Empire-building politicians (who then name subway stations after themselves)

Who benefits the least? 

• Everyone else 

What a YES vote means. 

• Among the highest sales tax rates in the nation. Forever.
  
• More construction, more maintenance, not necessarily more transit solutions.
  
• Cities and areas outside of the city of Los Angeles will continue to be second-class transportation citizens and will need to continue to be satisfied with transit crumbs and scraps from Metro’s table.
  
• Wasted opportunities and planned obsolescence, as traditional rail projects, including inefficient light rail, continue to provide expensive transportation alternatives with long commute times.
  
• Politically motivated spending on projects which will do little or nothing to increase mobility in the county.  
  
• The ability of the Metro board to divert funding from all the projects being touted in the Measure M propaganda to other projects which benefit their friends and patrons. And the inability of the citizens of LA County to do anything about it... 

• More broken promises.
  
• NO real solutions to the county’s traffic problems. 

What a NO vote means.

• Sending a message to Metro that we are unwilling to throw good money after bad money. Metro has raised taxes three successive times - and fares numerous times — without an accompanying increase in service, mobility or ridership.
  
• Acknowledgement that future-oriented mobility needs to be at the top of Metro’s agenda. Solutions for the future need to look to disruptive and transformative developments in transit technology, such as autonomous vehicles.
  
• Support for an integrated plan which puts mobility, not politics first.
  
• An unwillingness to pass another regressive tax, which disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable among us.
  
• Recognition that Metro Board governance needs to be changed so that all residents of the county are equitably represented, and that the city of Los Angeles’s leaders need to do more than pay lip service to the 62% of the county’s residents who live in the other 87 cities and unincorporated county.
  
• Support for social, racial and geographical justice.
  
• Acknowledgment that forever is a long, long time, and that a Forever Tax is not the answer.
  #

That’ll do it for the Executive Summary of the Measure M. You don’t really need to know that much more in order to understand just how bad an idea Metro’s Forever Tax is. But for those who like inside baseball, here’s the more detailed breakdown of the Forever Tax, Measure M. Enjoy!

More Money

Metro’s mantra seems to be “Show us the money!” It sometimes seems that the agency’s mission is more sucking up and spending money, rather than mobility itself.

We can see Metro’s addiction to taxpayer dollars by looking at Metro’s operating budget. Metro’s operating budget has increased from some $3 billion to over $5.6 billion in a few short years. 

So to deal with Metro’s jonesing for public dollars, this time it’s a Forever Tax, folks. 

Yep, that’s right: in contrast to Measure R, the new Measure M is a half-cent sales tax increase which has no sunset, no end, and which keeps the faucet of taxpayer dollars running forever. What’s more, Measure M eliminates the sunset date for Measure R, converting it, too, to a Forever Tax. 

Consequently, Measure M, the Forever Tax, effectively doubles the transit tax rate after Measure R expires, and brings the sales tax up to close to 10% throughout the County (and over 10% in certain areas). The Forever Tax would generate literally hundreds of billions of dollars and raise our sales tax to among the highest in the entire nation.

It is a blank check of the highest magnitude, because despite all the assurances of “strict oversight,” it is ultimately the undemocratic Metro board which decides how the money is being spent.

Mismanagement

For all the public funds Metro has taken to satisfy its thirst for money, for all the billions in increased budget, we haven’t seen anything close to the development of an integrated system of public transportation which serves the needs of the entire county. We haven’t seen an increase in ridership. We haven’t seen better service. We haven’t seen better mobility or a decrease in racial discrimination or an increase in social justice. And we haven’t seen a decrease in traffic.

What we’ve seen is pretty simple: a bigger budget.

While it’s clear Metro is not concerned at all with giving the residents of LA County the best mobility value-for-money, we see more evidence of Metro’s mismanagement from some of the projects proposed by Measure M and from some of the lack of projects.

Despite some nice-sounding lip service from certain Metro Board members, first/last mile mobility solutions are almost nowhere to be found either in Measure M or in Metro’s larger, overall transit strategy. First/last mile solutions are extremely important from a transit perspective, because in real life people need to have the ability to access heavy and light rail stations, as well as bus stops. Yet for all Metro’s focus on “shiny new things” aka rail, Metro is singularly dismissive of the need to help commuters get to and from the rail stations.

Cluelessness about “public transportation”

One of my Council colleagues recently posted on Facebook that he and his wife had taken the Expo Line to Santa Monica. Someone asked him how he got to the station, to which he responded that he had parked at Metro’s park-and-ride on Jefferson and La Cienega. A senior Metro executive then seriously suggested that my colleague could have taken Uber to the station.

Think about it. If my colleague was really going to take Uber, then he wouldn’t take it from Beverly Hills to Culver City in order to ride the train to Santa Monica. He would take it directly to Santa Monica. But beyond the cluelessness of the Metro executive’s suggestion, the mere idea that a representative of one of the richest transit agencies in the country would so cheerily offer up a private, profit-driven company as a solution for public transportation goes to show that Metro just doesn’t get the concept of “public transportation.”

In Beverly Hills, we recognize the importance of dealing with the first/last mile challenge, and so we are working on our own solutions, which would also transform mobility within our own city. We are the first city in the country to be actively pursuing the incorporation of autonomous vehicle (AV) technology within a system of public transportation with the vision of developing a Municipal Autonomous Shuttle System. As envisioned, our system would provide on demand, point-to-point mobility within our city which would literally transform public transportation, and would offer a blueprint for hyperlocal mobility solutions for other cities and regions.

Of course, Metro itself should be developing public transportation solutions to the first/last mile challenge rather than recommending Uber, but that’s another story and just one further example of Metro’s mismanagement.

Political Sepulveda Pass Blues

Perhaps the biggest poster child for Metro’s wasteful spending is Measure M’s proposal to build a tunnel through the Sepulveda Pass. It’s a 9-mile tunnel which is currently budgeted at $10 billion, including a connector to the airport. 

Let’s put this in perspective. 

The Swiss just recently completed the longest rail tunnel in the world, the Gotthard Base Tunnel, a 35-mile, twin bore tunnel. Switzerland is a notoriously expensive country. A Big Mac costs something like 60% more in Switzerland than in the US. But the Swiss managed to complete the GBT for some $12 billion, tunneling through some of the roughest mountainous terrain in the world. That’s about $343 million per mile. Contrast with Metro, which is budgeting almost a billion dollars per mile for the Sepulveda Pass Tunnel. And, no, the Sepulveda Pass is hardly the Alps...

But the Sepulveda Pass Tunnel is not only the poster child for Measure M’s wasteful spending because of the inflated costs, even by Swiss standards. The Sepulveda Pass Tunnel is the poster child for Measure M’s wasteful spending because it is a completely superfluous, unnecessary project. Oh, sure, Metro officials describe it as an “ambitious project that could vastly improve mobility.” But it makes no sense at all.

We already have a major piece of infrastructure which connects the Valley with the Westside. It’s called the 405 and Metro just spent a billion dollars widening it. Yes, it’s perpetually jammed, but perhaps before spending $10 billion on a tunnel, it would be better if Metro looked at ways to use this piece of existing infrastructure more efficiently.

Part of Metro’s problem is that it is not taking advances in transportation technology seriously and not integrating them into its Measure M plans.

In justifying the need for the tens of billions of dollars which Measure M would raise, Metro’s CEO Phil Washington has said, “we’re building for the next 100 years.” Yet if Metro is really building for the next hundred years, it should stop focusing on the past hundred years. It should start looking to the future.

Autonomous vehicle technology, for example, could create a significantly more efficient use of the freeways. One or two AV-only lanes, including multi-rider public transit AVs, could increase capacities on the 405 exponentially. There would be no need whatsoever for the porky Sepulveda Pass Tunnel.

But a tunnel is cool. It’s sexy.

And, more importantly, it’s been highlighted by Metro to try to appeal politically to Valley voters who feel they have been shafted in the past by Metro (because they have been shafted in the past by Metro). In short, the project is part of Measure M because Metro feels it will win votes to pass the tax.

The only problem is it could be yet another hollow promise. While Metro’s lackeys are touting the Tunnel to win Valley votes, they’re probably not telling those who would be seduced by the tunnel that it is not fully funded, not even with the Forever Tax. In the words of a top Metro official: “Measure M includes only $2.9 billion for all phases. The ability to achieve state, federal or private funds will determine how this project is finally scoped.” 

Overpromise and underdeliver

Part of Measure M’s unsolvable problem is that Metro is trying to make it all things to all people. The political ploy is to throw transit breadcrumbs and scraps around the county to get the diverse constituencies to vote in favor of the Forever Tax. As such, Measure M is a Frankenstein’s monster constructed of various disparate, non-integrated parts with the primary goal of passing a tax, rather than providing the entire county with the best possible, fully integrated mobility system. In fact, the promise of mobility is simply being used to get more money.

Like with the porky Sepulveda Pass Tunnel, which the Metro bigwig above seems to be selling down the river to elected officials concerned with its porkiness, Metro is telling different things to different groups. To the Valleyites, they are hard-selling the Sepulveda Pass Tunnel (“It will be transformational!”). To the South Bay and Gateway Cities, they are saying that the Sepulveda Pass Tunnel isn’t fully funded by Measure M and implying it might not ever get built.

You get the picture.

Metro board members desperate to get the Forever Tax passed have also been making calls and visits to elected officials from the other 87 cities in LA County (i.e. all cities outside of the City of Los Angeles) with a combination of sweet-talking and arm-twisting (“If you don’t support the measure, I’ll remember; if you do, I promise...”) to try to eliminate any opposition to the Measure. The results have been distinctly mixed, but the effort in itself is remarkable in that elected officials are being contacted by high-level Metro board members who are stunningly silent when they don’t want or need anything (“You never write. You never call...”).

Unfortunately, Metro has overpromised and underdelivered in the past. All the projects promised by Measure R have not been finished and some communities actually feel that the agency should make good its previous promises before holding its hand out again. And, quite frankly, some cities and elected officials are simply unprepared to say “Thank you, Sir, may I have another” or accept that their cities are being royally screwed, in spite of further promises from Metro honchos. 

It is completely understandable that the South Bay and the Gateway Cities Councils of Government, representing 44 — or half — of the 88 cities in the county, have voted to oppose the Forever Tax. This is unprecedented, but at some point, the chalice of Metro’s unfairness bubbled over and the elected officials - and hopefully the residents come November - were unwilling to call the BS they were being served up on the side chocolate mousse.

Because of Measure M’s unfair and inefficient funding scheme, these cities are going to have to wait decades for infrastructure which would serve their residents. What’s even more outrageous is that it’s also infrastructure which could be obsolete before it is even built. In their rapacious zeal to get the tax passed, Metro is ignoring the real opportunities which the future and new technologies open for a truly integrated region-wide transportation system which actually democratizes public transportation by creating a first-choice system of mobility.

Malfeasance

Metro’s Mismanagement and mantra of “Promise and Underdeliver” would be reason enough to reject their Forever Tax. But this is also an agency which in the past has done nothing to inspire the trust which in a best case scenario would justify another tax increase, never mind a Forever Tax.

Metro spent years under a consent decree because its policies created social injustice and increased racial discrimination. The focus on building sexy and expensive rail lines took (and takes) away resources from buses, which remain the backbone of the transit system. What’s more, a sales tax is among the most regressive taxes, disproportionately impacting the most vulnerable among us. This is why the Bus Riders’ Union, representing the interests of those who are most dependent upon good public transportation, as well as other civil rights advocates strongly oppose Metro’s latest Forever Tax.

And while Metro is a world-leader in spending taxpayer dollars, it neither provides the best nor safest public transportation in the country. It should be noted that Metro’s Blue Line light rail is among the deadliest, most dangerous commuter rail lines in the entire country. Over 120 people have died in Blue Line accidents and there have been over 800 collisions on this line alone since 1990.

Yes, Metro loves rail, even when it’s dangerous and even when it’s not the most efficient form of transportation. Metro’s new Expo Line from Santa Monica to Downtown LA is a case in point. It’s a 15.2 mile stretch which takes almost an hour from point-to-point. Not exactly a model of efficiency, though fans of the Toonerville Trolley might get their kicks on the Expo Line.

“Arbitrary and capricious”

What’s more, a federal judge’s recent decision (in a case involving Beverly Hills), describes Metro’s actions as “arbitrary and capricious,” and made the finding that Metro violated NEPA, the federal environmental law. If the IRS or DEA or EPA had been determined by a federal judge to have both violated federal law and acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner, one would think that none of the aforementioned agencies would claim the judge’s decision as a “victory.”

Yet that’s exactly what Metro has done. Metro touted the judge’s decision as a “victory” on “The Source,” because the federal judge did not vacate the ROD (Record of Decision), which allows Metro to continue its process of getting federal grant funding. Clearly, for Metro, it’s all about the money. But, clearly, governmental agencies which don’t care if they violate federal environmental laws and who are unconcerned over a federal judge’s ruling that they have acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner don’t deserve billion dollar blank checks and funding faucets which never get turned off.

Undemocratic and rigged corporate governance

Metro is an equal opportunity blower-offer and its arrogance crosses the board, whether it’s Norwalk, Torrance or Beverly Hills, whether it’s the bus riders or those opposed to using the notion of “Transit Oriented Development” (or TOD) as an excuse for overdevelopment. The cause for Metro’s arrogance and tendency towards misbehavior could very well be the subject of a dissertation of a corporate psychiatrist, but much of it likely has to do with the fact that the residents of LA County are not proportionally represented on the Metro Board. The Metro board was designed and rigged to give the city of LA outsized, bloc voting power, and that means that the other 87 cities in the county, as well as unincorporated areas, can easily get the short end of the stick. 

Metro’s undemocratic corporate governance needs to be fixed, something which the city of LA is bound to resist, but something which it should embrace in the name of fairness and true regional cooperation. Torrance’s Mayor Pat Furey and I wrote an article in the LA Business Journal in detail why Metro board reform is a precondition for truly getting transit on track back in LA County.

Misinformation

Metro’s entire sales pitch on the Forever Tax, Measure M, is that it will “bring traffic relief.” In fact, Metro’s own name for Measure M is “the Los Angeles County Traffic Improvement Plan.” Sounds great, but this is a total myth.

In fact, the viability of the entire ballot measure is predicated upon this myth. It’s why Metro wags are touting that polling shows 75% of the voters are in favor of the tax.

Of course, with polling, it all depends on how you ask the question.

Metro’s pollers: Do you want to alleviate traffic?

You: Yes!

Metro’s pollers: Would you be willing to pay a half-cent more in sales tax to solve the traffic problems?

You: Yes! 

That’s how Metro can get 75% polling in favor of the Forever Tax.

And yet, even the LA Times, which when it comes to Metro often seems like a booster organization rather than an independent, objective organ of journalistic integrity, wrote earlier in the year about Metro’s increasing expenses and ridership slump.  (The headline online now reads, “Billions spent, but fewer people are using public transportation in Southern California.” This headline was softened from talk of a “Ridership Slump,” a phrase which evidently was anathema to Metro. Presumably, Metro’s PR honcho, Steve Hymon, a former LA Times employee was able to get his buddies to change the headline of the online version, though if you look to the URL, it includes the phrase “ridership-slump”).

So, in short, Metro’s equation is: more money=fewer riders.

Which leads us to a number of important questions:

Is pouring more money into the agency - forever - really the solution? Especially considering how Metro seems more concerned with the digging/tunneling/building/spending itself rather than with mobility?

How about demanding an agency which develops a modern, forward-thinking, fully-integrated system which has efficient, point-to-point transportation as its goal?

How about a transportation system which is a first-choice for mobility for the majority of the county’s residents? A transportation system which our residents use because they want to, not because they have to, would be the hallmark of the kind of public transportation system we both need and deserve.

Measure M, Metro’s Forever Tax, is a far cry from anything close to that. For the resources which Metro is now demanding from the taxpayers, we should insist upon no less. Because forever is indeed a long, long time....

(John Mirisch is the Mayor of Beverly Hills. He has, among other things, created the Sunshine Task Force to increase transparency, ethics and public participation in local government. Mayor Mirisch is a CityWatch contributor.)

-cw

EASTSIDER-Much ado has been made over recent corruption involving the Calderon brothers and the Central Basin Water District. First, hats off to CityWatch, which covered their shennanigins in no less than three separate articles back in 2013. 

For all the smoke, not much happened until last year, raising questions as to what the Feds knew and why they didn’t do anything at the time. Now of course everyone seems to be weighing in on the Calderons and the Central Basin Water District with horrified expressions of “oh my god, how can this be?” Please. 

The Calderon brothers have been playing in California politics since the 80s, led by brother Charles (a former LA City Deputy City Attorney) for those who follow politics, they always played dirty and they always played hard. Real hard. For decades they have controlled much of the political life of most of southeastern Los Angeles County -- places like Cerritos, Santa Fe Springs, Norwalk, Montebello, Downey, Pico Rivera, Bell, Huntington Park, and the like. Not to mention the California State Legislature. 

As all the rats desert a sinking ship, what political insiders always knew is now public -- these folks were major league crooks and the Central Basin Water District was their big time slush fund. 

One of the major players in this mess is Robert “call me Bob” Apodaca, who was serving as President of the Water Board when the wheels came off their crooked deals. In one of those “only in Los Angeles” moments, Apodaca then cut a deal for himself to testify against the Calderon brothers -- but only after getting the Board to pay $670,000 to settle a sexual discrimination against himself! 

Fortunately, one case that Bob couldn’t fix was the whistleblower lawsuit against him and the Central Basin Water District filed by Ron Beilke, a former Pico Rivera city councilman. When it became clear that Beilke was poking his nose into fiddled financial transactions and would not go along to get along, he was fired after less than a week on the job. Recently, a superior court judge ruled that Beilke is entitled to a jury trial. Hot damn, that should be interesting. 

For those whose prurient interest in matters Calderon is piqued, the Los Angeles Times has an absolutely cool interactive graphic on the Calderon family and their web of politics. You can find it here.  

Water Districts -- the Structural Story 

If this was simply a story about crooked politics in Los Angeles, most people would yawn and go back to their iPhones or the internet. Maybe it’s just me, but most people I talk to seem to think that most in City Hall are a bunch of crooks, albeit smart enough to insulate themselves by using cutouts like real estate developers, billboard companies, lobbyists and lawyers, not to mention merrily violating the Brown Act public meeting statute through staff, small committee meetings and a default 15-0 Council voting system. God forbid that a Neighborhood Council should emulate them. That NC would find itself in “Exhaustive Efforts” faster than Eric Garcetti can make a deal. 

So let’s take a closer look at water districts, with special emphasis on Central Basin. The graphic header to this piece is a web capture of the Elections page from the current Central Basin Municipal Water District website. Tell me if you can figure out anything about the Board of Directors from the web page. Good luck, unless you’re into the Municipal Water District Law of 1911. 1911 for goodness sake! 

Anyhow, the truth is that the Central Basin Water District is a relatively recent special district, as they go, being voted into existence in 1952 to “help mitigate the over pumping of underground water resources in southeast Los Angeles County.” Sure. So the first thing they really did was join the Metropolitan Water District -- the same huge District that the DWP buys water from. And, greasing the gravy chain, Apodaca got to be on the Board of Directors of the MWD.

Too Many Special Districts 

The problem is that there are way too many special districts, especially water districts, in California. In 2001, after the state’s Little Hoover Commission issued a pretty rough report, AB 38 was passed charging the Legislative Analyst’s Office with examining water special districts. 

The Legislative Analyst’s report, which can be found here, revealed that there are 1286 water districts of one type or another, which is an astoundingly high number of public agencies when you think about it. They ranged from the giant Metropolitan Water District to little teeny ones with few employees. Of those districts, some 326 were controlled by county boards of supervisors, 25 were run by city councils, and some 935 were independent water districts, like the Central Basin Water District that sunk the Calderon brothers and their pals. 

Think about it. Almost no one knows anything about these water districts and, as we have seen, they provide a wonderful opportunity for both graft, as in the recent case of the Central Basin Water District, and for more nuanced behavior like personal aggrandizement, warehousing money, slimy deals, secrecy in general, and all kinds of groovy stuff which could provide lots of plots for episodic television. 

I know, it’s hard for normal folks to keep track of Cities, Counties and the State of California itself without having their eyes glaze over – but there’s a whole subterranean world of California public agencies. Also, buried in the regulatory labyrinth of the state is a group of public entities called “Special Districts.” Within that generic category, “Water Districts” are an even more arcane subset. And since almost no one knows about them, they are easy prey for mischief by members of their Boards. 

Recent Developments 

In 2014, as the events surrounding the Central Basin Water District were starting to gain coverage, the LA County Board of Supervisors asked the State of California to conduct an audit, which they did. The report, released in 2015, was scathing. And Assembly Member Christina Garcia (D-Downey), introduced legislation to clean the mess up. 

But remember, this is California, where nothing is as it seems. Back in 2013, at the same time that everyone was writing about the Central Basin mess, and the drought was coming on strong, our very own governor Jerry Brown appointed a big time water lobbyist as the chief deputy director of the California Department of Water Resources. 

I can’t resist a play on words -- her name is Laura King Moon, reminding us old folks of Jerry’s former moniker, “Governor Moonbeam,” during his first term. (I know, cheap shot.) It’s clear that the governor lost his former ideological frame of mind after becoming mayor of Oakland. 

Further, in 2014, Governor Brown vetoed Christina Garcia’s bill (AB 1728) that would have tightened contribution limits for water board members. Gee, I wonder if Ms. Moon had any input into the veto. 

This year she authored another bill, AB 1794, which is squarely aimed at the Central Basin Water District and would establish an entirely new governance structure for the Board. As of now, I don’t know if the governor has signed it or not. 

Sometime in the future, I’ll get into the overall issue of special districts in California -- their perils and pitfalls -- and what’s happening. Teaser: nothing’s been done since the Little Hoover Commission’s 2000 Report but the Little Hoover Commission is back at it and will be conducting hearings starting this month. 

Stay tuned.

(Tony Butka is an Eastside community activist, who has served on a neighborhood council, has a background in government and is a contributor to CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.) 

Tags: 

EDUCATION POLITICS-The charter school under fire for accusations that it used public money for luxury items like first class airfare, a bottle of syrah (not será) and late night charcuterie (and more…much more) defended itself by blaming the school district for failing to provide necessary oversight. 

In Risky Business, did Tom Cruise blame his parents for leaving him home when his entrepreneurial experiment turned into the party of his life? 

El Camino Charter Executive Director David Fehte’s party was the premier topic at LAUSD’s August 23rd board meeting. As has been widely reported and blogged, the board adopted a Notice of Violations for the high achieving, highly segregated -- some might say that’s redundant -- charter school. 

The charter school’s attorney said the problem isn’t unique to El Camino. “Like Charlie Brown kicking a football, charter schools are set up to make compliance mistakes, and then they’re heavily penalized when they actually do,” she complained. 

If she means that, in the five years between renewal hearings, unregulated charter schools can be given enough rope to hang themselves, she may be right. But then she threatened legal action against the rope maker. 

“…Approving this will expose the district to liability,” she said bluntly. 

The testimony of the teachers, though, was emotional. Some had been teaching at El Camino for decades and they had gone through a process to try and discern the best way to serve their students. Eighty-five percent had voted to become independent from the district bureaucracy and convert to a charter. 

One teacher said, “It hurts me personally to see our reputation under scrutiny.” 

The rest of LAUSD and public school districts across the country might have a thing or two to say about the fairness of being scrutinized. 

The teachers touted the accomplishments of the school since they were granted autonomy: Having the highest paid teachers, adding staff to the tune of two dedicated college counselors, another counselor just for the Humanitas program, facilities upgrades, new technology and an administration that is 100% behind their collaborative model. None of them mentioned an enrollment process that allows charters to recruit the most motivated families. 

Every person who testified on behalf of the charter school pointed the finger at LAUSD’s Charter Schools Division (CSD). 

Melanie Horton, the charter school’s director of marketing, said, “We need feedback and guidance. We pay oversight fees and we expect their support.” 

Another teacher, Susan Freitag, the visual and performing arts department chair, said that since they converted to charter, the school has benefited from facility upgrades and new technology. She asked, “If the thousands of pages of violations sent to [El Camino Charter] hold any validity, I question the Charter School Division as to why these issues were not brought to our school’s attention prior to last year. We have the same administration. We’ve had the same financial team. We’ve had the same board members.” 

Dean Sodek, head of the Humanitas Global Studies Academy at El Camino Charter said financial transparency is something we all want. 

One wonders if these teachers pressed their charter school board for the same thing. For all the recent talk that “all schools are our schools in the LAUSD family,” its charter schools are independently governed by their own boards of directors. Nonprofits are subject to oversight even if they’re not schools because they’re handling public money.

The same administration. The same financial team. The same board members. 

Former LAUSD school board member David Tokofsky quoted a page from history when he testified at the board meeting. 

“I’m reminded, as a social studies teacher, of the phrase ‘What did you know? When did you know it and who did you tell?’ That refers not to you as a board or to the superintendent, but it may refer to your staff and it may refer to the board at this charter school.” 

There will be plenty said, and plenty of people will need to say it, as the volumes of documents are investigated. Which recalls another quote from history: “This is not the end, this is not even the beginning of the end, this is just perhaps the end of the beginning.” 

How much authority does the LAUSD board have over an independent charter school? Will charters start lobbying for more oversight? LOL. What will the California Charter Schools Association say about that? Why did so many public schools in former school board member Tamar Galatzan’s district convert to charter in the first place? 

The discussion and the ramifications will reach far beyond El Camino Charter and the LAUSD.

Qué será, será.

Whatever will be, we'll be -- watching. (With apologies to Doris Day, Jay Livingston and Ray Evans)

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