LOS ANGELES

ELECTION 2016--Despite her self-regarding belief, Barbara Boxer has not exactly been a paragon of political achievement in the U.S. Senate — but c’mon is this really the best a state of 39 million people can do in finding a replacement?

Not since the tap dancing George Murphy and the tam o’shanter-styling S.I. Hayakawa squatted in California’s seats in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body have there been two Mickey Mouse lightweights as insubstantial as 2016 Senate wannabes Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez.

So we guess it was appropriate that the one and only faceoff between the Democratic dynamic duo Wednesday night was the lamest so-called debate in memory, Or at least since the 2016 vice-presidential contenders parleyed the night before.

A dilettante’s delight: The ABC7-produced event in LA was, and let us put this as politely as possible, a bloody muddle: a panel of three, amateur-night questioners competed for time with a batch of pre-recorded Real People (some of whom could not be heard by the rivals in the studio) to pose the most insipid inquiries possible, while OCD-stricken moderator Marc Brown continuously refused to let the candidates finish sentences, apparently concerned there wouldn’t be time left for the crucial performance of a troupe of trapeze artists waiting in the wings.

At one point, one of the three panelists (we omit Janis Hirohama’s name to spare her family embarrassment) actually asked Harris and Sanchez “what committees would you like to serve on?” Yuck.

In the end, sigh, Harris’s banalities and clichés trumped Rep. Sanchez’s squeaky prattling and saccharine babbling, and Kamala was the only one on the stage who at least had the poise and appearance of a U.S. Senator.

Three key takeaways:

Where were Willon, Cadelago and Marinucci? Egghead Raphael Sonenshein of the (all rise) Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State LA; League of Women Voters goo-goo Hirohama and ABC7 general assignment reporter Adrienne Alpert all are, no doubt, very nice people who are routinely kind to dogs and curtain crawlers. Not one, alas, is a professional political reporter who is actually, um, covering the Senate race.

So instead of benefiting from beat reporters who know what they’re talking about, and who might have asked at least one – one, for the love of God, one! – follow-up question, we were subjected to this trio of worthies earnestly reading her or his list of shallow questions conscientiously prepared in study hall. That’s not to mention moderator Brown, who seemed to think the 12 people who actually tuned into the affair did so to hear him bellow “your time is up,” any time either Kamala or Loretta came close to expressing a complete thought. Secret memo to Marc: the fans don’t come to the game to watch the umpires.

Queen of the platitude: Harris was alternately arrogant, condescending, weak-kneed and pandering. Some examples of her soaring rhetoric: On water: “We must have a conversation around this” (A conversation? Really? Hint, hint: California’s been having a “conversation” on water since before the Bear Flag Republic. No word yet on any progress). On fighting terrorism: “We have to be smart and tough” (now don’t get too far out on a limb there, General). On U.S.-Russia relations: (“I believe that Russia poses a serious threat to our country” (Ooh). Also: we hereby demand a moratorium on using the word “unpack” unless you’re talking about removing the contents of a suitcase. Big upside: she speaks in complete sentences.

Word salad Sanchez: For her part, Sanchez was smarmy, scatterbrained, snarling and sarcastic. At least her self-dramatic digressions were long-winded. To her credit, she did roll out an entertaining series of creative gestures to distract from her semi-coherent verbal frolics, at one point forming a little hand puppet mouth while saying that Kamala was all talk and no action, and, at another, shooing the air in her foe’s direction, like a fairy princess dismissing the wicked witch from her kingdom. Sadly for Sanchez, Harris totally clobbered her on her truly lousy House attendance record.

Bottom line: Neither candidate did anything that will change a race now shaped as a Harris win. As a practical matter, it wouldn’t matter anyway, since either of them would fill the Boxer space in the Senate of predictable, reflexive support and fist-shaking on behalf of every liberal Democratic interest group in the state. Good times, CTA, trial lawyers and SEIU!

What a pair.

Full disclosure: we watched this horror show with one eye focused on the Giants memorable wild card win over the Mets. However: the most recent PPIC poll reported that a fourth of likely voters said they might not cast ballots in this one. And, despite our long and impeccable citizenship records – we’re the only two people in California who actually show up for jury duty – we’re tempted to join them.

(Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine … long time journalists … publish the award-winning CalBuzz.com) 

-cw

LATINO PERSPECTIVE--We have all been so busy and preoccupied with the Presidential election this fall but did you know that there is also an important Senate election to replace Senator Barbara Boxer who is not running for re-election? 

Very few people are paying attention to this election. Both Senate candidates -- state Attorney General Kamala Harris and Orange County Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez -- are Democrats and female and come from diverse backgrounds. Whoever wins in the November general election will make history for California and the nation. 

Harris, whose mother is of South Asian descent and whose father grew up in Jamaica, would be the second black woman elected to the Senate; Sanchez would be among the first Latinas elected senator. 

Following on the heels of Barbara Boxer's retirement announcement, the election will fill the state's first open Senate seat in two and a half decades. 

Besides the lack of knowledge on the part of many voters about these two candidates, what’s really interesting is the lukewarm support the Latino community has for Congresswoman Sanchez. 

Last May, Rep. Filemon Vela (D-Texas) blasted the California Democratic Party for backing Attorney General Kamala Harris over Rep. Loretta Sanchez in the primary for U.S. Senate. Vela, in a statement to the Washington Post, said the party’s active support of Harris “is insulting to Latinos all across this country.” 

“Congresswoman Sanchez has served her Party and her state in an exemplary fashion for over 20 years,” he also said in the statement. 

“Surely, grassroots California Democrats will recognize that such disgraceful treatment of Congresswoman Sanchez will only lead the party in a foolish direction.” 

Asked why he criticized the state party’s endorsement, Vela said via email to The Post that Democratic organizations should not endorse in primaries: “The establishment should be available to help ALL Democratic candidates equally.” 

“How can the Party claim to be supportive of the Latino community and at the same time alienate a qualified candidate in a historic election?” he wrote. “I hope this statement encourages Democratic leadership across this country to recognize that the Latino community should not be taken for granted. 

California is the most populated state in the country, with the largest number of Latinos than any other state in the country. The California Democratic Party has no business taking a position against Loretta Sanchez,” who, according to Congressman Vela is the “most experienced candidate in this race.” 

“Not one single Democratic Latina has ever been in the United States Senate, and the California Democratic Party’s position is a disrespectful example of wayward institutional leadership which on the one hand ‘wants our vote’ but on the other hand wants to ‘spit us out,’ ” Vela said. 

But the reality is that the Democratic Party endorses in elections all the times where there are two or more Democrats competing against each other; I believe the Republican Party does the same. 

I disagree with Congressman Vela for saying that Latinos should support Sanchez just because she’s Latina. Being Latino or Latina shouldn’t be the only reason to back a candidate. It’s irresponsible to vote for someone or support a candidate solely based on race. 

Vela’s statement that the Party’s active support of Harris is insulting to Latinos all across this country is not true at all. Latinos are smarter than that; we are going to vote for the best qualified candidate. If that candidate happens to be Latino or Latina, then even better. 

At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what the position of the party is. What matters is the position of the voters. Political parties are political institutions and make political decisions. Congressman Vela should know better. It’s just politics!

(Fred Mariscal came to Los Angeles from Mexico City in 1992 to study at the University of Southern California and has been in LA ever since. He is a community leader and was a candidate for Los Angeles City Council in District 4. Fred writes Latino Perspective for CityWatch and can be reached at: [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

PLATKIN ON PLANNING--By now we have all encountered news services, like Politico, that fact check politicians during the election campaign. Well, this week I am offering a similar service to CityWatch readers. I have fact checked three recent “news” articles that sing the praises of extravagant real estate speculation in Los Angeles.

Hopefully, my fact checking will help you critically assess the constant stream of quasi-journalistic falsehoods that spin the virtues of illegal real state projects that rely on special, parcel level City Council ordinances to become legal. 

More specifically on my blog I have posted my extended corrections to these three articles: 

• “In Cranes’ Shadows, Los Angeles Strains to See a Future with Less Sprawl,” New York Times, September 21, 2016. 

• “Tall v. Sprawl – Build Better LA Proposition Will Determine Our City’s Future,” LA Weekly, September 27, 2016. 

• “LA Community Developer Caruso Struggle with Caruso’s ‘Dream Project’,” City Watch LA, September 26, 2016.                                                                                                                          

While I certainly invite you to go to the link for my blog, Plan-It Los Angeles, here is the abbreviated version of what you will find there.  

In their efforts to celebrate real estate speculation, all three articles rely on a journalistic form to candy-coat private commercial interests trying to game the land use system. This is why I call these articles info-journalism. They are the print version of an infomercial, those mock late night TV ads that mimic news stories, but are really nothing more than an extended commercial touting a specific product, such as a Veg-O-Matic kitchen utensil. 

In addition to their faux journalistic form, all three articles fail to mention the following: 

1. The mega-projects in the sights of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative are all illegal. The adopted laws of the City of Los Angeles bar their construction because they conflict with the City’s adopted General Plan and the zoning code that implements the General Plan. 

2. In order for these otherwise illegal projects to be constructed, the City Council must adopt a special law for their underlying parcel that, essentially, exempts the project from the City’s General Plan and from the zoning laws that implement the General Plan. If this looks like “Pay to Play” to you, I suggest you trust your intuition. 

3. All of these large mega-projects require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and all of these EIRs identify an environmentally superior alternative, such as a modification of the existing structure or a replacement structure that could be built by-right because it already conforms to General Plan and the Zoning Code. 

At the request of the investor, however, the City Planning Commission and the City Council never opt for the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, they support the most environmentally damaging alternative. In doing so, they always adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and these Statements always rely on the developers’ claims that that his or her project will generate jobs and/or transit ridership. None of these claims are ever subsequently monitored and verified, and there are no consequences, such as the revocation of a building permit, if the purported benefits fail to appear. 

4. Even though all of these “illustrious” projects are substantially higher and larger than nearby legal buildings, the City Planning Commission and the City Council gloss over the General Plan’s clear principle that new development must be consistent with the character and scale of existing development.   Despite obvious design clashes, the City Planning Commission and the City Council never reject a project on design criteria, even though the General Plan Framework Element has an entire chapter and three appendices solely focused on neighborhood and building design. 

5. The General Plan is also clear that new development must have sufficient supportive public infrastructure and public services for deviations to proceed. Yet, none of these articles mention that LA’s infrastructure is strapped and often failing, that the city is headed for natural disasters that will compound underinvested infrastructure and services, and that the City has not properly monitored its own infrastructure and public services in nearly two decades. 

6. The General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, and Height District Changes that the City Council dishes out to its cronies dramatically increase the value of the underlying land. Yet, none of this added value comes back to the City as additional property taxes because of Proposition 13’s giant loopholes. This is because the title does not change, and the only benefit to the city and state is from sales taxes generated by on-site businesses. 

Now, some special fact checking for each of these articles. 

The New York Times article presents current land use disputes in Los Angeles as a disagreement in esthetics and values between those who want a slowly growing, dispersed city versus those who want a concentrated city with rapid growth that also addresses its housing crisis. This is an entirely false distinction. The opponents of the mega-projects are not fans of suburbanization or slow growth. They simply want a city that prepares, adopts, implements, and then monitors an up-to-date General Plan. These plans designate many areas where density and height are allowed, and they ensure through careful planning and monitoring that the city’s infrastructure and services are up to the task. This position is not pro-sprawl, pro-suburbanization, pro-slow growth, and pro-a housing affordability crisis. These ridiculous claims are nothing more than the unquoted repetition of the desperate arguments of anxious business interests whose latest business ventures are real estate projects, not to Kruggerands, cotton futures, and high tech start-ups. 

The LA Weekly article is even worse than the New York Times article when it comes to false distinctions in order to convince its readers that speculation in otherwise illegal real estate projects is just what the doctor ordered for an ailing Los Angeles. On one side the Weekly presents a modern urbanist faction that yearns for an LA that should be tall, dense, served by mass transit, bike lanes, and pedestrian-friendly streets. Their preservationist opponents are those who want a Los Angeles that is supposedly wide, sprawling, car-oriented, and dominated by single-family homes. This imaginary distinction, too, is utter nonsense. 

The real dichotomy is between those who advocate for a city that is properly planned and monitored, versus those who implicitly call for a city that grows willy-nilly, based on short-term profit maximization, oblivious to existing zones, plans, public services, public infrastructure, neighborhood scale, and neighborhood character. But, support of good planning is independent from the pace of growth, single-family homes, mass transit, bicycle lanes, and creating a pedestrian environment. In fact, as anyone who has reads my weekly CityWatch columns knows, these features are all part of a properly planned city, and this is the best way to ensure that these vital infrastructure components appear. 

The CityWatch article was largely a sympathetic interview with the head of a company, Caruso Affiliated, that wants to build a 240-foot high luxury high rise project at the site of the recently closed, three-story Loehman’s store near the Beverly Center. Because the developer made a last minute change to his list of required discretionary actions by adding an SB 1818 Density Bonus option, the article presents the developer as a billionaire populist who is trying to create a model of egalitarian life style in Los Angeles. 

While few hired publicists would go overboard like this, the article unsurprisingly fails to mention that the only objective change in the project is converting 8 of its 145 luxury ($10,000 to 20,000 monthly rents) to affordable units whose actual rents are not yet known. The article also fails to mention that many other developers of market housing, including high-end housing like this project, have taken similar advantage of SB 1818. They, just like Caruso Affiliated, have been able to bust through zoning laws, by converting 5 percent of their units to affordable apartments (that are never subsequently field inspected by the City of Los Angeles). 

Furthermore, the developer’s boast that the 8 tenants of the affordable units will have access to the same amenities of the 137 global one-percenters paying full fair is not even optional. It is a legal requirement to treat al tenants the same. 

Finally, by opting for the 5 percent SB 1818 option now, the developer may be able to shield himself from the 15 percent requirement of the Build Better LA Initiative on the November 2016 ballot. He may also insulate himself from the City’s pending 20 percent affordable inclusionary housing requirement contained in the Value Capture Ordinance now worming its way through the City’s lumbering preparation and adopting processes. 

Readers, hopefully my fact checking has come in handy, and if you encounter any more info-journalism promoting mega-projects that you want debunked, my email is below.

(Dick Platkin is a former Los Angeles City Planner who reports on local planning issues for CityWatch. Please submit any comments or corrections to [email protected].)

-cw

GUEST COMMENTARY-The continuing generational fraud, the purposeful failing of predominantly Latino and African American students at the over 90% de facto segregated LAUSD, is accomplished by never addressing these minority students' subjective academic levels and needs. Such an open fraud could never take place without the collusion of the commercial and public media, which scrupulously refuse to report what is actually going on academically at LAUSD that the system makes no attempt to hide. 

In just the latest example of the media parroting of the disingenuous LAUSD party line ideas like "LAUSD board pushes for 100% graduation rate" by Los Angeles Times Reporter Sonali Kohli -- without any real reporter examination of such a goal in light of easily discoverable facts attainable through Public Records Requests  -- reporters continue to never address whether this pie in the sky LAUSD administration goal of 100% graduation has any real possibility of coming to fruition -- it doesn't as long as the truth as to what is going on at LAUSD is never reported. 

How much real reporting would it take for reporters like Sonali Kohli (photo above) to uncover the following publicly accessible facts showing:

LAUSD Cumulative Enrollment Counts

2014----------2015----------2016

608,478------598,298------595,840

Student Truancy Counts

2014----------2015----------2016

275,983------209,105------297,844

And then, might she ask those like Supt. Michelle King and the LAUSD Board members who have the gall to talk about “100% graduation” the following questions: 

How can you honestly expect to increase graduation rates if half of your enrolled students are chronically truant? 

This question might then lead to another question: Why are so many students truant, while LAUSD administration does nothing about it? 

Could it have anything to do with the fact that LAUSD policy has been to coerce teachers into giving passing grades and socially promoting all students -- whether or not they have mastered prior grade-level standards and are capable of doing the next grade-level's work – and that LAUSD administration has pushed them into in complete derogation of their actual academic ability? 

If Sonali Kohli, Howard Blume, and all the other reporters who are too afraid of losing their jobs were given free rein to do as Deep Throat advised Woodward and Bernstein to do in All the President's Men -- "follow the money" -- they might also then ask some of the following questions: 

How many students that are habitually truant are still reported as present for purposes of collecting Average Daily Attendance money from the state and other financing from the federal government like Title I? 

Does this amount to defrauding both the state and federal governments? 

If LAUSD's official 2016 graduation rate of 75% is anything but a made up number, why doesn't it align with either attendance figures or subsequent LAUSD student failure rates at community colleges, where 70% of incoming freshman are taking remedial and not college-level courses, because their high school diplomas aren't worth the paper they are printed on? 

Doesn't such post-LAUSD graduation academic failure also point to the knowing fraud in present high school credit recovery courses, given the widespread post high school failure and high incarceration rates of the large numbers of LAUSD high school graduates? 

It's not like Supt. King and the LAUSD Board members don't know the truth -- nobody's hiding it. Just go into almost any LAUSD school and you see the failed academic reality that their plan scrupulously ignores. 

This purposefully unaddressed failed reality of LAUSD schools is given a different insider's meaning by ex-school principal and now LAUSD board member George McKenna's comment regarding the 100% graduation rate: "It's a wonderful slogan," he says, but he has seen too much of LAUSD school reality to believe it. 

It is criminal that these “usual suspects” continue to mouth platitudes they know have no chance of succeeding without first addressing the abysmal, easily verifiable academic reality at LAUSD. How long will they be allowed to get away with this?

(Leonard Isenberg is a Los Angeles observer and a contributor to CityWatch. He was a second generation teacher at LAUSD and blogs at perdaily.com. Leonard can be reached at [email protected]) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

GELFAND’S WORLD-It's that time of year when your television screen fills up with ads attacking ballot propositions. But have you noticed that the political ads almost never tell you what the propositions would actually do? Instead, the screen is filled with young women running through fields of daisies or, in one recent approach, the TV screen is filled with spokesmen wearing military paraphernalia who are swearing that Proposition 61 is unfair to veterans (photo above). There is an opposing ad that has a spokesman -- also dressed up in military paraphernalia -- explaining that Prop 61 won't hurt vets. 

Nobody tries to inform us what Prop 61 would actually do. 

Or there is Prop 56. We get a mom and her young child, with the mom asking us to help prevent her child from someday taking up smoking. What we don't get is a simple description saying that Prop 56 raises the tax on a pack of cigarettes by two dollars. 

Funny thing about these commercials. In the anti-Prop 61 ads, the final screen showing the names of the major funders flicks on and off so fast that you can't quite follow. You have time to read the first few words, but they are generic made-up titles for organizations that don't sound genuine. We could make up our own organization and call it something like Proud Americans for Preserving Veterans' Rights and Freedom, and stick it on the end of one of these commercials, and who would know that it was created by a giant pharmaceutical company, or at least by the advertising agency that was hired to carry water for that company? But if you look closely (don't blink), you can find the names of some pretty heavy hitters in the drug industry near the bottom of the screen. 

Shouldn't the television stations provide an explanation for what each proposition does? Isn't this part of the news? This is a major failure on the part of commercial broadcast television in its ostensible duty to serve the public interest. 

But there is the Official Voter Information Guide sent out by the office of the Secretary of State. You probably got it in your mail a few days ago. May I point you to what is called the Analysis by the legislative analyst. It's on the first page of each Initiative section, right below the Official Title and Summary. For Prop 61, the explanation begins on page 72. 

Here is the first paragraph of the summary for Prop 61: 

Prohibits state agencies from buying any prescription drug from a drug manufacturer at any price over the lowest price paid for the same drug by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, except as may be required by federal law. 

There is one little exception that the opponents are attacking, but fundamentally, the law is ostensibly an attempt to allow California to take advantage of how the VA achieves discounts based on bulk purchasing. 

That doesn't seem like such a complicated idea. Whatever the VA pays, the state pays. No more and no less. It's no more because that is what the law would require. It's no less because the drug companies aren't likely to accept anything less from California than what they already are getting from the VA. 

So what's the beef? From the standpoint of the drug companies, it's potentially a very big beef. If California can enforce this standard for drug pricing, then what's to stop any other state from doing the same? In an era of the $600 epipen, there are a lot of individual consumers and state purchasing agents who would like to see a more balanced approach to drug pricing. The remedy for monopoly pricing is either more aggressive antitrust enforcement or collective bargaining on the part of consumers. 

For most of us, the collective bargaining is done by Blue Cross and Blue Shield. For VA patients, the collective bargaining is done by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Apparently the VA does pretty well in its negotiations. One reason for this is that the VA has traditionally been willing to remove a drug from its formulary if the administration feels that it is overpriced and that there are alternative drugs available. Now the state of California would like to take advantage of the system of price negotiations that already exists. 

You can see how the pharmaceutical industry would feel endangered by the most populous state trying to reduce its drug spending this way. If California has been paying $100 for some prescription drug and the VA is getting it for $70, what is the manufacturer to do? 

Well, one strategy would be for the drug company to start charging the VA the same $100 as California (and most everybody else) has been paying. That seems to be what the anti-Prop 61 ads are implying. The ballot arguments in the voter guide say pretty much the same thing. What's missing from this argument is that the VA has been enforcing its price strategy pretty well, and isn't likely to back down. 

There is a simpler argument against Prop 61 based on public policy considerations. We need a better method for negotiating drug pricing that is national in scope and is enforced at the federal antitrust level. The problem is that drug company money keeps the congress in check, so we aren't likely to see such legislation anytime soon. California voters are left with this alternative. It's imperfect, but it's something.

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

-cw

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW-Two weeks ago, I first wrote about a Los Angeles Historic Cultural Landmark in the Valley that has become ground zero for the integrity fight in its Sherman Oaks neighborhood. In a nutshell, the city has approved a Tenant Habitability Plan (THP) for Chase Knolls that allows the developer to knock down existing carports and laundry rooms and remove 138 mature trees to make room for new utility lines to upgrade electricity for future tenants so the landlord may install in-unit washer/dryer and dishwashers, amenities that will not be offered to existing tenants. 

Update: As of September 22, The Office of Historic Resources has asked the developer to stop the removal of the mature trees, pending an investigation of the property’s historic landscaping.

I’ve been speaking with Chase Knolls tenants, neighbors and other stakeholders to get the stories behind why maintaining this landmark is so crucial. 

This week, I spoke with Carolyn Uhri who has lived in the Sherman Oaks neighborhood near Chase Knolls since the 1950s. 

For Carolyn Urhi, the Valley (and Chase Knolls) represent a piece of her childhood. She’s committed to honoring her childhood neighborhood where she still lives. Carolyn is the President of the San Fernando Valley Arts & Cultural Center, as well as the Project Coordinator for Horses Across the Valley at The Museum of the San Fernando Valley. 

Here’s what Carolyn shared with me: 

The History--“I used to walk by Chase Knolls every day on my way to school. It was an oasis; I thought it was magical as a young kid. My next door neighbor for many years came from Pennsylvania after the war. They were both in the Navy and lived at Chase Knolls while their house was being built. It was the place to go because it was an exotic garden apartment, what somebody from Pennsylvania would have thought Los Angeles was all about. 

When my parents came here from Nebraska to the Valley, this was a big deal for them. My mother used to take the red car to Hollywood because there were no department stores until they built a Sears in North Hollywood. Everything had more of a neighborhood feel back then. We were lucky to live in an area where we really watched out for one another. That has carried over from the original owners of these houses built in 1952-54 but I just don’t know what’s going to happen to families now. 

That’s gone.

This place has such a wonderful history and in a way, that is being pushed to the side. Some of these trees were planted in 1949, some actually have been here before that. The developer obviously thought it was important to keep some of the details, like the stainless steel counters in the kitchens. 

Waterton--Waterton Property & Investment Group is one of the most unscrupulous companies. There are three issues I see; traffic, water and quality of life, pretty generic but important, all in the name of a dishwasher! There are elements that they have kept and I am not sure how they were able to circumvent the others. 

Councilmember David Ryu--I’m disappointed in our new councilman who took over. David Ryu was supposed to be the one fighting developers. He had gone into people’s living rooms before the election to talk about that and how he’d fight for his constituents but nothing could be further from the truth! 

I want to believe city officials are on the up and up but I don’t believe they are. They seem to just want to let developers do whatever they want to do. At one standing room only meeting I attended behind Ross near Fashion Square, I remember Ryu saying he “inherited this from Tom LaBonge” and didn’t want to deal with it. He seemed indifferent to the whole thing. David Ryu was dead on arrival for this whole thing. He jumped into the pockets of developers, along with many others.

The Impact--Waterton wants to raise the rent for Chase Knolls residents. What happened to thinking about traffic? We have Milliken Middle School, Notre Dame. The plan is expected to add 140 more units. This will bring even more traffic. Where is the water coming from? This issue rankles me. With IMT, they’re putting up a new apartment building almost every month. Where is the water coming from? We get chastised for using too much water but they let developers come in and obviously use more water. 

(Note: A decade ago, the City Council approved six new apartment buildings on Riverside inside the Chase Knolls block that would contain 140 units but the entitlement ends in February.) 

The Neighborhood--I’m just really quite upset about what is happening to the residents and to the neighborhood. I have lived a half-mile away and have lived here since 1957. 

There have been lots of changes. It’s not like I want to go back to the sixties but too many things have been put into place to protect Chase Knolls and I wonder how the heck they’re getting around this, especially the historical landmark issue and pushing out existing residents. It’s a sad commentary on what is going on here.

Why This Matters--My area is still like Leave it to Beaver. Everyone has kept up their homes. But it seems that quality of life is not in the equation any more. That’s why I was forced to get involved in making sure these developers don’t take over. 

What Needs to Happen--I think we need to have a separate San Fernando Valley Conservancy to address our issues. If this is the way the Los Angeles Conservancy is run, it needs a complete overhaul. It’s supposed to be people trying to save garden apartment complexes, historic landmarks. This should not be about loopholes and ignoring the laws or checking off things that should not be checked off or looked into as “not applicable.” It’s so blatant. Do they think there isn’t going to be any backlash from how they’re handling it? 

This also all depends on money to fight. This group needs a lawyer and it takes money to hire a lawyer. 

Sherman Oaks is being overrun. With the Sunkist Building project, they’re planning to build 295 units on top of commercial storefronts just down the road. What on earth is happening to this area? It’s becoming like Tokyo.” 

Questions--Another issue I want to find out is the vacancy rates. I’ve heard with all the complexes built by IMT, they’re only one-third full. If that’s true, why do we need more units? They say it’s going to be low cost housing for a year and then they raise the rents.

What happened to quality of life? This is not the way it’s supposed to be.

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

AT LENGTH-You’d expect the postmortems on the Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump debate to be decidedly partisan dissections. I don’t think anyone would have thought so many Republicans would join the stomp parade on Trump’s debate performance. 

“Trump was somewhere between incoherence and babble. Never [before] has there been a candidate in a presidential debate as fundamentally unprepared and incoherent as what you saw tonight,” Republican political strategist Steve Schmidt said. 

The Arizona Republic, which has never endorsed a Democrat for president in all its years of publishing (since 1890) wrote: 

“The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified…for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.” 

The editorial staff of the Arizona Republic went on to explain: 

“The challenges the United States faces domestically and internationally demand a steady hand, a cool head and the ability to think carefully before acting. Hillary Clinton understands this. Donald Trump does not. Clinton has the temperament and experience to be president. Donald Trump does not.” 

It will come as no surprise to conservative readers and even some liberal or progressives of this newspaper that as a staunch Bernie Sanders supporter we are now endorsing Hillary Clinton for all of those reasons announced by one of the most conservative Republican newspapers in America.

I find it extraordinarily strange that this paper finds itself in agreement with such ardent conservatives, but the Republican Party has not had such an unqualified presidential candidate since its founding. Trump’s delusional rhetoric has divided this country from every corner and state down to our own main streets. 

Trump’s politics of fear insinuated itself far and wide in the national psyche through his calls to profile and restrict the movements of Muslims and Mexicans—the echoes of which can be heard in the voices of those who fear our growing homeless population at home. 

Those fears are rooted in the anxiety many working class Americans feel -- an anxiety that often results in the scapegoating of marginalized communities. When Trump says he wants to “Make America Great Again” he does it by hammering on our fear of the other, a division as deep as the Grand Canyon. 

One can only ask, “How can Trump possibly unify this nation after creating such divisions?”

The same might be said about Hillary Clinton except that she has not been the one castigating minorities or promising to build a Great Wall of China along our southern border to keep out the heathens. In the San Pedro Harbor area, our very own smiling Joe Buscaino has inspired much of the same fear and loathing as The Donald, though perhaps unintentionally. 

Still, the empowering of the Saving San Pedro folks with appointments and neighborhood council status has only emboldened the anti-homeless contingent of Pedrans and fueled sustained vitriol on social media. The main culprit behind Buscaino’s political rise and continued social media stardom is his chief propagandist, communications director Branimir Kvartuc, who recently told me point blank that, “I’m not going to answer any of your questions.” This while he was talking to the press at the Barton Hill demonstration we reported on in this issue about the lack of transparency in deciding the location of the homeless storage facilities near the elementary school. 

What we have found here is that Kvartuc’s facile use of seductive digital media imagery has built a bubble around Buscaino, shielding him from voices of dissatisfaction with his reign in office, as the number of those grumbling grows. 

There are very few who will go on record  about their lack of confidence in Buscaino’s leadership, but privately there is a growing chorus asking, “Exactly what has Joe done in the last five years, aside from taking selfies of himself and blasting them over social media?” 

Media should be the bridge and not the wall between the governed and those who govern -- and when the government assumes the role of being the media, like Kvartuc and others have done, they eliminate dissenting voices. Hence, like Trump, Buscaino is living in his own self-generated delusion. 

Don’t get me wrong, Trump is a xenophobic self-centered egotist who can only bully his way into public office. Buscaino, on the other hand, is a really nice guy, a former Los Angeles Police Department senior lead officer whom everybody once liked. I’m sure that, unlike Trump, Buscaino’s intentions are decent, if unavoidably naive and narrow-minded. After all, he views governance through the lens of law enforcement. Some have even gone so far as to call him arrogantly ignorant of the realities of big city politics and development. 

Whatever the case may be, it has come to my attention that he is terribly thin-skinned and resistant to even light-handed criticisms. I’ve offered them privately before I voiced them publicly. His leadership, much like his police training, is a top down kind of approach that distrusts collaboration, public discussion (unless heavily controlled or edited) and critique. 

He avoids neighborhood councils, except when he wants his decisions to be rubber stamped. He sets up task forces to deal with dicey issues so as to avoid Brown Acted meetings and transparency and uses them for cover if things go bad.  And, when you come to think of it, this is the same kind of problem the rest of the City of Los Angeles has with its citizens, or vice versa. So Buscaino fits right in with the top down power structure. 

An example of this is the councilman’s bungling of the homeless storage proposal, which excluded Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council advice, and avoided getting community consent and consideration of the neighborhood that would be most impacted. Obviously, his chief propagandist didn’t get ahead of the issue before it exploded. Good job, Branimir! 

(James Preston Allen is the Publisher of Random Lengths News, the Los Angeles Harbor Area's only independent newspaper. He is also a guest columnist for the California Courts Monitor and is the author of "Silence Is Not Democracy - Don't listen to that man with the white cap - he might say something that you agree with!" He has been engaged in the civic affairs of CD 15 for more than 35 years. More of Allen…and other views and news at: randomlengthsnews.com.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EDUCATION POLITICS--The Los Angeles school board gathered last week under the premise of discussing Superintendent Michelle King’s draft Strategic Plan.  

The morning session was a discussion of how to connect what the board and the district do to what happens in the classroom. In other words, what is the mission?  

Remnants of special interests were apparent. The discussion was framed as what reform (or as LA’s late, great Scott Folsom used to say ®eform) should look like. 

Board President Steve Zimmer bristled at the term. “School reform has become a vulgarly distorted term that I’m not actually interested in anymore because I don’t know what it means.” 

The news reports following the meeting mostly announced the board’s mission of 100% graduation (KPCC's report gave a fuller idea of what was discussed). 100% graduation is neither a mission nor a vision, but a goal. The morning conversation was about more than that anyway. 

It would have benefited from some preparation in the form of research and policy analysis presented to board members ahead of time. Without that, each board member was left to his and her own devices. Some were better informed than others. 

PUC Charter Schools co-founder Ref Rodriguez blamed regulation: The regulatory environment keeps us centralized rather than ultimate school reform. Not sure what that means, but ®ef must be thrilled that Governor Jerry Brown vetoed two bills this week that would have required charter schools to adhere to California’s transparency laws that all public bodies in the state follow. He was the least helpful. He later suggested that empowered parents should be considered "just noise". 

There was discussion about why parents and even employees go directly to board members instead of to the many district employees whose jobs are to do the things the board hears about. That might be because board members are elected and therefore accountable to the people. 

Some board members elaborated on their vision. The longtime school principals, Richard Vladovic, George McKenna and Scott Schmerelson, and classroom teacher Monica Ratliff described school communities as the center. Vladovic cited Edmonds’ research and talked about bringing in parents and the whole school to improve student achievement.  

Monica Ratliff grappled with whether and how board resolutions can make their way into the typical classroom. They discussed the need for district employees at every level to know that their whole purpose was to serve students. These were ideas that you could imagine parents, teachers, principals and aides coalescing around. They were talking mission and vision. 

It’s hard to understand how hours of exchange about the goals and obstacles for a huge and diverse school district got reduced to a single number. 

Maybe it’s because, by the afternoon, the Board Bully, Monica Garcia had joined the meeting. But why did Zimmer, too, insist on narrowing the focus “laser like,” as he said? And why was King so ready to reduce the district’s mission to one goal? 

The superintendent, whom Zimmer reminded everyone, has the most trust of any superintendent in recent history, will now be judged by her ability or inability to achieve one target. The headlines will write themselves. 

George McKenna understood that this was the wrong direction, knowing all the factors that are beyond the school’s control. There’s plenty of research about this, too. 

But it seemed that having the Superintendent declare an easily stated goal was more appealing than grappling with the exigencies of a diverse and massive school district. 

Reducing LAUSD’s mission to 100% graduation is downright baffling when you contrast it with California’s recent move toward the use of multiple measures in evaluating schools (after years of leading the country in bucking the Obama administration’s Race to the Top policies). Amidst ESSA's rejection of 100% proficiency goals of NCLB. In light of the shift in the national discourse from achievement gaps to opportunity gaps. 

But this background was not even discussed. 

Michelle King is a good listener. Recent reports say she has been listening to the Great Public Schools Now (GPSN) folks who plan to award grants to open more schools in LAUSD. Last week, the LA Times wrote: 

Emphasizing possible collaboration, [GPSN’s] news release on Wednesday included a comment from LA schools Supt. Michelle King. 

“I am excited about the opportunities to increase the number of high-quality choices for our LA Unified families,” King said. “We have schools in every corner of the district where students are excelling. Investing in these campuses will allow more of our students to attain the knowledge and skills to be successful in college, careers and in life.” 

She added: “I have encouraged our local district superintendents to identify our most successful models and to work with their teams to develop competitive and forward-thinking proposals,” King said. 

As enrollment is dropping and the superintendent is considering consolidating and closing schools (according to this TV interview), how are more schools the answer? Where will those students come from? But these are ideas brought to her by GPSN.  

Michelle King is known as a good listener. Those of us who care about our schools should consider giving her something more to hear. 

What is your idea of LAUSD's mission? What do you want included in the strategic plan? 

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

-cw

VOX POP--The Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted to place the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative on the March 7, 2017, ballot today – a major victory for all Angelenos who want to reform City Hall’s broken and rigged planning and land-use system. Jill Stewart explains why there is so much support for the ballot measure. 

Noting that community activists worked hard to gather nearly 104,000 signatures from the public to put the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative on the ballot, City Council president Herb Wesson said that the “fairest way to deal with this is ask the voters what they think.”

Coalition to Preserve LA campaign director Jill Stewart said today, “Our measure allows 95% of all development to continue while the greediest 5% of developers are put on a timeout while we force the City Council to come up with a real plan for Los Angeles. How are they going to improve the roads, get the water we need and fix the infrastructure to accommodate the City Council’s desired huge projects?”

Stewart added, “Our ballot measure forces them to answer this crucial question and follow our zoning rules, instead of ignoring them as they have in recent years. It will also force them to address the growing luxury housing glut of 15% vacancies – three times what is healthy – that has left LA with ghost condos and empty penthouses while rents skyrocket and homelessness spikes. Again, this City Council has no plan.”

The Coalition to Preserve LA is a burgeoning, citywide, citizen-driven movement that seeks to reform City Hall’s broken and rigged planning and land-use system. It is the sponsor of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative.

Inside City Council chambers today, several Coalition to Preserve LA supporters explained the desperate need for the reform measure.

Grace Yoo (photo above), an attorney and co-founder of the Environmental Justice Collaborative, detailed how a 27-story luxury housing skyscraper was approved by City Hall for a low-slung, working-class section of Koreatown. The community overwhelming opposed the mega-project, but the City Council and Mayor Eric Garcetti didn’t listen to them. 

“The residents are tired of the city bulldozing over them,” said Yoo.

Xochitl Gonzalez, a Neighborhood Council member and Westside resident, spoke about City Hall’s recent approval of the Martin Expo Town Center mega-project at Olympic Boulevard and Bundy Drive, where traffic is already gridlocked. The oversized development will only worsen car congestion, and numerous community groups opposed the mega-project. But, again, the City Council didn’t listen—and green lit Martin Expo Town Center. 

Explaining that LA’s planning and land-use system consistently favors wealthy developers over ordinary citizens, Gonzalez said, “People all over LA are beginning to understand how skewed the process is.”

• More info on Coalition to Preserve LA, including joining, donating, viewing the Initiative. 

(Patrick Range McDonald writes for Preserve LA. Read more news and find out how you can participate: 2PreserveLA.org.) 

-cw

CITY HALL--The vast majority of Angelenos who show up at LA City Council meetings to address their representatives have never been there before. They come from every corner of the city, from every age group, and for different reasons, but there’s one thing they all have in common—genuine, heart-felt passion about their reason for coming. Without such feeling, those Angelenos could never find the impetus to take time off from—and to risk losing—their jobs, to find a caretaker for their young kids, or, as a senior citizen, to venture out into the unfamiliar and frightening web of buses and subways. 

The expectations with which they come to a City Council meeting--of what will happen when they take those fateful few steps up to the public comment podium, when the agenda item for which they’ve travelled all this way to speak with their representatives, is called up by the Council President--vary as much as do their reasons for coming.  

But there’s one thing none of them expect, but which is true at least half of the time—that they won’t be allowed to address the Council at all. 

Sometimes the bad news is delivered politely by the Sergeant-at-Arms, sometimes curtly, but the effect is devastating regardless.  

The reasons they are turned away? The most frequent cause is that the agenda item was already “taken up in committee”-- and the Brown Act says that if an opportunity for public comment is given at a committee meeting, then the Council doesn’t have to hear public comment at the regular meeting.  

Sometimes the reason for the bad news is that the Council has decided—during the meeting—to “continue” the agenda item to another date. That means they’ve decided not to address the issue that day but instead to do it at a future meeting.   

Other times the reason for denial of public comment is that the item was “already approved,” as a result of Council President Wesson taking up the issue in the first few seconds of the meeting, even if the item appears near the end of the published agenda.  

In every one of the cases, Council President Wesson can easily make it possible for these Angelenos to make their comment. And yet he rarely does that.  

Even for the lucky ones who make it up to the podium to say their piece there is disappointment. They will find many of the Council members … often as many as half or more … are missing, or engaged in side conversations, or, as happened recently, holding a press conference.
It’s heartbreaking. It’s wrong. And on Friday, on a motion by Paul Krekorian, the amount of time afforded to those who made the journey down to City Hall to address their representatives was cut in half.  

How much time does that give? Five minutes? Three? No, the answer is one. A single minute. 

It’s no wonder that the respect level for politicians is at an all time low. It’s no wonder that voter turnout at Los Angeles elections is embarrassingly miniscule. It’s no wonder that more citizens than ever before are going to court to get the attention of their representatives. As former LA Councilman Joel Wachs said in his run for mayor as far back as 1992, the people have become cynical about government and no longer believe anyone is listening or capable of understanding them. 

It’s interesting to imagine how successful a politician might be, in today’s cynical climate, if he or she were to give a promise of human compassion a high priority in their political campaigns. Of course that would require that they possess that quality in the first place. And, based on the treatment of constituents in the Los Angeles City Council chambers, human compassion is running in short supply.

(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 teacher who lives in Los Angeles.) –cw

@THE GUSS REPORT-One month ago my CityWatch article exposed how Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti threw under the bus a veteran Los Angeles Fire Department Deputy Chief named John Vidovich (photo above) who actually did what he was supposed to do: improve public safety by exposing inefficiency and fraud among some, but more than a few, fire inspectors.

Vidovich’s efforts caused fraudulent overtime to plummet (some inspectors are believed to have been paid more than $130,000 in annual overtime) and criminal behavior to be exposed so much so that the firefighter’s union stepped in with hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash for Garcetti and members of LA City Council in a curiously timed, but alleged and unstated, quid-pro-quo donation to stop Vidovich. 

I have since received scores of statements from Vidovich supporters alleging specific acts of fraud, including some that accuse the Garcetti-appointed LAFD Chief Ralph Terrazas of knowing about the criminal activity but doing nothing about it internally or not reporting it to the District Attorney’s office for further investigation. 

Perhaps the most pronounced area of the alleged fraud at the LAFD is in its Schools, Churches and Institutions unit which, according to its website, is “responsible for the inspection of all public, private and charter schools in the city of Los Angeles…and for inspecting Los Angeles Unified Schools District schools, churches with over 750 attendees, jails and residential care facilities.” 

The accusations against Inspectors in this unit include: 

Last November, Inspector Glenn Martinez allegedly put in for 30 hours of inspection time at the University of Southern California. The problem is that those hours were billed during the bustling USC/UCLA football game week that, according to sources, would never have taken place during that time, and could not have taken place because Martinez would have needed key card access. Some sources claim Terrazas knew about this allegation as early as December, 2015, but failed to launch an investigation until I started researching it for my article in August, 2016. Martinez may also be caught up in similar activity at Occidental College. 

Inspector Aaron Walker is accused of being so far behind in his work that he allegedly deleted from the inspection database dozens of ancient buildings at the West Los Angeles Veterans Administration campus. An internal report given to Terrazas is believed to show the results of a computer forensics investigation indicating that those addresses were deleted via Walker’s account. Walker is rumored to have denied this allegation, claiming that someone made the deletions while signed in under his name, but he could not be reached for comment for this article. 

Inspectors Derricke Lockhart and Patricia Ramirez were both accused of allegedly inspecting, among other places, several daycare facilities that may have been closed for as much as a decade on the dates they claimed to have inspected them. 

Vidovich (photo left) was hardly alone in his efforts to expose the corruption. Among the good guys is Captain Duc Nguyen, who discovered one Inspector allegedly putting in for 150 different inspections at a swap meet that had a single address. 

These and many more allegations were known to the higher-ups, like independent assessor Sue Stengel, who, sources say, was more hell bent on finding dirt on Vidovich than on digging into the fraud allegations and misconduct that was known to management before he was appointed to clean it up. 

It is believed that Walker, Martinez and some of their colleagues have, or are about to, put in a claim against the city for $1 million each for retaliation, a pre-cursor to a formal lawsuit that may have the unintended consequence of exposing more wrongdoing during the discovery process. 

Since these allegations would amount to felonious behavior (if proven truthful) due to the monetary value of each fraudulent inspection, what remains to be determined is what, if anything, did Terrazas tell Mayor Garcetti? And if he did tell him, was Garcetti too busy endorsing the firefighter union’s campaign check to care? 

If they both stay silent on a matter of public corruption, it’s time for the FBI to get involved. Garcetti, Terrazas, Stengel and firefighter’s union officials at the local and national level did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a writer who contributes to CityWatchLA, Huffington Post and KFI AM-640. He blogs on humane issues at http://ericgarcetti.blogspot.com/. His views do not necessarily reflect those of CityWatch. This is the second of an ongoing CityWatch investigation into LAFD inspection fraud.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

@THE GUSS REPORT-“This is Ground Control to Janice Hahn.…” Immediately hire the person who for several hours last week posted voluminous, detailed comments (actually, the only comments) vigorously defending you using the name Jay Romeo on my CityWatch article regarding the illegally raised special interest donations that you have agreed to return in your campaign against Steve Napolitano to become LA County Supervisor of the 4^th District. 

That is, unless Romeo already works for you …. 

Romeo’s effort is what one might expect of a paid political consultant like Hahn’s campaign spokesman John Shallman who did not respond to my offer to do Q&A prior to the article being published and discussed on KFI AM-640. While his office eventually denied posting those comments, let’s take a closer look. 

But first, my cardinal rule about reporting on politicians or aspiring ones: I do not accept prepared statements in lieu of (my) questions and (their) answers. A prepared statement neither advances a story nor serves the reader. It serves only the entity making it. 

Romeo claims to be so close to Hahn that he explains her motivation for returning those funds: “She’s doing it anyway out of an abundance of caution and respect for the law in general.” 

Romeo also cited quotes from the LA Times and the Daily Breeze newspapers: 

Los Angeles Times (9-24-16) “In an interview, Hahn said she would pay back the money if the county ultimately decides she has to…” 

Daily Breeze (9-22-16) “As we’ve said before, Janice will ‘cure’ (repay what’s owed) within the time frame given by the registrar,” said Hahn strategist John Shallman. 

Generous for Romeo to include that second quote, don’t you think? Perhaps the Daily Breeze quote was added because in the Times’ article, Shallman’s name did not appear in proximity to his quote, and that one quote addressing the subject simply wouldn’t do. It’s just a hunch. 

On Friday, while Hahn and Napolitano duked it out in court when he sued her to prevent those excess funds from being spent, I re-contacted Shallman’s office to ask if they posted the Romeo comments.

Meghan Carvalho, a Shallman aide, emailed me a prepared statement (despite my caveat against them) that she said came from Shallman. 

In Shallman’s statement, he mentioned “…firefighters, teachers and nurses…” 

In one of Romeo’s comments, he mentioned “…teachers, firefighters and nurses…” 

There are more than 10 million people living in Los Angeles County in thousands of professions. 

How spectacular that Shallman and Romeo selected not only the same number of professions, but the same exact three…with the same exact comma usage, too.

-----

In the LA Times, Shallman is quoted “…working families are not silenced…”

In the same exact context, Romeo wrote “…working families, cannot donate…”

-----

Shallman’s emailed statement noted how the law “…rigs the system in favor of millionaires…”

Romeo’s comment was “…rigs the system in favor of millionaires…”

That’s the same exact wording, to the letter.

-----

Shallman, in his prepared statement and in other media outlets, made some of the same specious points that Romeo did, like suggesting that donation limits on Political Action Committees (PAC) somehow silences individuals’ 1^st Amendment right to contribute to campaigns. They do not. Individuals are all able to donate to campaigns directly, regardless of whether they also donated to PACs. 

This is hardly the first time Shallman has been accused of unconventional, unfair or untruthful behavior. 

While Romeo accused me of favoring Napolitano, I wrote about Napolitano’s concerns because he willingly engaged in Q&A, while neither Hahn nor Shallman did. But let me assure you, Romeo, I do not live in the 4^th District, am neither Republican nor Democrat, cannot tell you where Napolitano stands on even a single issue and, prior to this article, never even heard of him. Satisfied?

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a writer who contributes to CityWatchLA, Huffington Post and KFI AM-640. He blogs on humane issues at http://ericgarcetti.blogspot.com/.   His views do not necessarily reflect those of CityWatch) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ALPERN AT LARGE--As mentioned in a previous CityWatch article, the need to figure out what to spend our tax dollars on is as critical as ever. Raising or cutting taxes willy-nilly makes no sense--the big questions are whether our current taxes are spent well, and if our society wants to focus on a given priority. 

It should be remembered that our current state budget is dominated by self-serving public union leaders who are merely hired guns to make some folks wealthy (or at least comfortable) while the rest of us are left to fend for ourselves and work two or more jobs until we drop dead of old age.  Our pension budgets … city and state … have not been resolved. 

We're spending as much or more on retired pensioners (who deserve to retire well, but not at the unsustainable six-digit-figure-per-year level) as we are on current state employees and their necessary services.  It's doubtful that even the average public sector union worker believes that our current pace is sustainable, so it's not so much the unions but their greedy, tone-deaf leaders who have inspired this mess. And, our many less than skilled electeds who allow it to happen. 

So the "ginormous" number of state, county, and city tax measures we have to vote on is daunting.  Frustrating.  Painful even. 

In short, it's easy to figure out how to vote this November, because the "money tree" is bare: vote NO on all tax measures (especially with regards to education) with the exception of those addressing transportation/infrastructure. 

Of course, it's no secret that I am a transportation advocate, so I may be coming across as a self-serving lobbyist ... except that I don't get paid.  I very much AM, however, through my neighborhood council and other grassroots experience, familiar with the needs and outcries of the voting public.   

Education dollars are being horribly misspent, as are so many health, welfare, homeless and other vital issues that merit BETTER spending, not MORE spending. 

So why the big exception for Transportation/Infrastructure?  It's simple:  the demand is critical, and our health and economy (which pays for everything) is on the line.  And our transportation departments, at virtually all government levels (with perhaps the exception of the high-speed rail folks), are pretty efficient. 

Here are a few key issues with respect to local and regional transportation, particularly Measure M, the LA County transportation sales tax measure (VOTE YES!!!): 

1) With state leadership and federal funds drying up, local cities and counties are having to make up and take the lead on any transportation planning, funding, and construction.   

If it makes you feel any better, this governor and his high-speed-rail-at-the-expense-of-all-other-transportation-priorities will be out of office in two years.  And both Trump and Clinton have promised more annual spending, with a strong prioritization in our government, to rebuild and expand our transportation/infrastructure, if they are elected. 

2) Did the Expo and Foothill Gold Lines prove successful?  YES.   

Expo Line ridership is years to decades ahead of ridership hopes, and the whole San Gabriel Valley can't wait to have a full Foothill Gold Line to Montclair, which is at the eastern edge of the Inland Empire.  Planning/drafting for the Glendora to Montclair extension is ahead of schedule. 

Meanwhile, the Rams are enjoying a heavy Expo Line ridership to their games, and it's blatantly obvious that any future Olympic or pro sports teams playing at the Coliseum, near Staples Center, or anywhere Downtown will benefit from the Expo Line and the future Downtown Light Rail Connector (which will make our countywide rail network just that...a network). 

3) Did the City of Los Angeles, LA World Airports, and Metro get their act together for better airport operations? 

Yes, yes, on my Sweet Lord, YES!  After witnessing an adversarial impasse for decades, the City and its LADOT, the County and its Metro, and the LA World Airports planners are a team!   

Whether it's the Olympics, the need to have a better economy, or just common sense, the Crenshaw/LAX Light Rail Line and the LAX People Mover to connect Metro to the terminals, are both approved and will be done by a potential 2024 Olympics. 

Furthermore, LA World Airports backed off an unnecessary LAX northern extension that would have trashed current and future Westside transportation efforts, and is doing work to improve the flight and connection experience in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 

4) Does the County of Los Angeles, and its cities, want more transportation funding?  YES! 

The South Bay Cities want the Green Line extended to South Torrance, and for planning to commence ASAP to connect the Green Line, San Pedro, and the Blue Line.   

As aforementioned, the San Gabriel Valley Cities want their Gold Line extended ASAP to the San Bernardino County border (and probably en route to Ontario Airport). 

The Southeast/Gateway Cities want a Green Line/Santa Ana PE Right of Way connection to the Orange County border ASAP, and there is an increased interest in the lost-but-not-forgotten Green Line extension to the Norwalk Metrolink station (and to the Orange/Riverside Counties' Metrolink network). 

The San Fernando Valley wants its successful Orange Line Busway converted into a light rail (regardless of past lost opportunities to have it built as a light rail in the first place) and both the Westside and San Fernando Valleys are ready for both the Wilshire and Sepulveda Subways to be built and carry hundreds of thousands of passengers a day on both sides of the mountains. 

A northern extension of the Crenshaw/LAX Light Rail Line to the Purple and Red Lines is as popular as ever, and after the LAX/Metro Rail connection is created there will be undoubtedly a resurgence of interest in the unused Harbor Subdivision Right of Way from Inglewood to the Blue Line and Union Station, and create another "Downtown Connector" via a southeast Downtown that is ripe for commercial and residential development. 

In short, the economic and mobility opportunities abound for Measure M to be passed, and it is therefore a tax measure that is among the most worthy--if not THE most worthy tax measure this November.  

It is no wonder that the LA Times and all chambers of commerce favor passage of Measure M. 

Yet the abject failure of the City of Los Angeles to devote enough road and sidewalk repair in its budget, and the failure of Metro to accommodate sufficient parking for its rail lines, and the lack of freeway priorities are strong arguments against Measure M. 

But it should be remembered--and this is critical--that the main argument against Measure M is that it doesn't fund enough.  The unmet needs of the different regions of the county, and the unmet needs to repair and upgrade our streets, freeways, sidewalks, etc., all scream for better state and federal matching efforts. 

Which makes the bold passage of Measure M as timely as ever. 

Which makes the need for Sacramento and Washington to do their fair share as timely as ever. 

Which makes the need to stop the garbage/pandering spend-a-holic ways of our state and federal governments as timely as ever, and focus on the basics--our roads, rail lines, mobility, and economy.  

Stop making a few comfortable, and stop barfing out money on military, education, social service and other efforts that are being spent poorly, and use efficiency in those other sectors to pay for the most vital of our governmental services. 

Money does NOT grow on trees.  Where we spend poorly, we need to spend more efficiently--and to Hades with those who are prospering at our collective expense ... because our taxes are OUR money to spend on.  And if we are in need of spending more on unmet and popular priorities, then we should do just that. 

Vote YES on Measure M, and with virtually no exception Vote NO on all other city, county, and state tax measure come this November!

(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

DEEGAN ON LA-Think for a minute about how much time you spend each day in your car, moving about from home to work, to shop, to play, and then overlay that with how much frustration you feel with traffic and hassles with parking. Once calculated, look at the other side of the coin: what if you could exist just fine in a ten-square block area that you call “home”, or your ”bubble”, where you can live, work, shop and play? Designers and planners call living in a “bubble” like this the “new urbanism”, and it’s becoming contagious: people are discovering it to be a solution to gridlock, the cousin of overdevelopment. 

In a city with hundreds of neighborhoods with these attributes it's not hard to find one that matches your needs -- if you are not already settled into one and experiencing your own bliss. 

Do you really need to live in the valley and work in the basin, and fight that over-the-hill canyon traffic every rush hour? Or, work in the Studio City end of the valley and live in Woodland Hills? Or love being in the hills at night but working at the beach during the day? Those kinds of combinations, once very attractive when everything in LA was “20 minutes away,” are no longer feasible. 

Millennials that are moving out from home and starting their first significant career positions can adapt easily to the new urbanism paradigm, while others that are more established and settled, may feel stuck where they are in both their living and working locations. But survival and a sustainable lifestyle are not only for the fittest, they’re for everyone. 

Dislocation and disruption may be survival tactics worth considering. Our traffic will never improve: the added lanes on the 405 prove that all the expansion did was increase the volume and capacity of the 405 going through the Sepulveda Pass. Smart cars will not ease traffic: they will just bring more cars onto the roads, albeit without drivers and a need for parking spaces. 

Thinking has to change, and the most atomic level at which this can happen is the individual, making informed and smart decisions about where to live, work, shop and play. 

If “new urbanism” is new to you, what better way get on the fast-track to expand your knowledge of it than by attending the Fourth Annual New Urbanism Film Festival, (NUFF) opening October 6 and running through the weekend, an event that has become very popular and well-attended over the past few years. It’s fun and educational to watch the many short films that define new urbanism, listen to panel discussions, take neighborhood walks with designers and planners, and to meet and chat with seasoned new urbanists and newcomers who want to join the growing movement by finding common sense solutions to living in the huge urban mass of Los Angeles. 

What, exactly, is New Urbanism? The Congress for New Urbanism explains the essence of the movement in its charter statement: “We stand for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the conservation of natural environments, and the preservation of our built legacy.” 

Urbanists tell us that “A significant number of Baby Boomers and Millennials are moving back into America’s downtowns looking for a new American Dream. What they seek is walkable urbanism – a vibrant urban place where they can walk to the important destinations of life. This new life is downsized and sustainable, but not without its challenges as cities struggle with twenty-first century problems.” The festival's screening of “Downtown” helps amplify this point. 

What can you expect at the New Urbanism Film Festival? Plenty. Every night, from Thursday, October 6 through Sunday, October 9, there are films and lots of special events. 

For example, on Opening Night, Thursday, October 7, a panel of LA designers and planners who are bringing life to urban spaces through art and temporary installations will host a panel discussion on “Tactical Urbanism” following a screening of the film, “The Art of Recovery.” 

Another panel discussion, this one about historic preservation in Los Angeles, will follow Saturday afternoon’s (October 8) screening of “Through the Place,” a feature-length documentary about the historic preservation movement in the United States over the past 50 years. 

A highly-anticipated panel about the Los Angeles River will be held on Saturday, October 8, following the noon screening of “Accidental Parkland.” 

Festival programming this year is expanding to include a Culver City “hub” on Sunday, October 9, that will be the starting point for excursions to Ballona Creek and Playa Vista that include a train trip on the brand-new new Expo Line from downtown Culver City to Downtown Santa Monica to learn what design principles have been applied there, as well as a bike ride around Culver City to witness bike-related projects. 

Festival Director Josh Paget was enthusiastic about this year’s programming, saying, "I am excited about this year's festival because it has more emphasis on community engagement. We have a lineup of feature films that really explore the history of urban issues in different cities, and then we've curated a panels of expert from Los Angeles, who will help apply the lessons of the movie to the local issues in Los Angeles." 

Films, expert panels, activities, networking, education, and brain expansion: the new urbanism -- all in four highly participatory days that will help you learn how you can begin identifying as a “new urbanist.” What are you waiting for?

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

GUEST WORDS—(Editor’s Note: This column was posted on Sunday, October 2, the day of Vin Scully’s final broadcast.) It is October 2, 2016. 

The French have an expression, “Partir, c’est mourir un peu,” which roughly translates to: “To say goodbye is to die a little.” 

The day has finally come and I feel as if a little part of me has died. 

Saying goodbye to Vin Scully as the voice of the Dodgers has never been a pleasant thought or an easy proposition. And now it’s upon us.

GELFAND’S WORLD--The working press tends to look for each election's storyline, and then beats on it ad infinitum. Those of a certain age will remember when Gerald Ford was labeled as clumsy and stupid. Comedian Chevy Chase built the beginnings of his Saturday Night Live career by taking Ford-like pratfalls. In the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush was presented as a bit dumb, but Al Gore was labeled as haughty and overbearing. When the press got hold of the line (that Gore didn't actually say) -- I invented the internet -- we heard those words in late night monologues for the rest of the decade. 

No matter that Gerald Ford was probably the most athletic person ever to hold the presidency of the United States, or that Al Gore isn't really like that, or that George W. Bush isn't stupid. Once these tropes get their barbs stuck in the national skin, they don't come out easily. 

It's taken a while for the mainstream press to come out of its collective shell and begin to adopt a storyline on Donald Trump. It's really only the past couple of weeks that the Trump label was adopted as the semi-official presentation for the 2016 election. 

Here it is: Don't trust anything Trump says -- anything at all -- unless you have actual evidence. 

This goes way beyond the more prosaic argument suggesting that Trump deviates from the truth once in a while. If he were just a teller of tall tales that would be something that normal people could live with. We expect a little factual improvisation from politicians who are caught with their arm in the cookie jar. But the argument that the media are making about Trump goes several steps further, making him out to be a pathological case. It's been a long time coming, but now that it's been exploited on the front pages of major newspapers and on CNN, it isn't going away. 

The effects of this developing consensus are beginning to do damage to Trump's campaign. At this moment a few days after the first presidential debate, Trump's advisors are trying to figure out how to salvage something from the wreckage. That means Trump needs a comeback in the second debate. Barack Obama did it in 2012, so why not the Donald? 

The problem for Trump right now is very different than it was for Obama back then. Trump is stuck with a problem of his own making. During the debate, he couldn't resist interrupting Clinton when she made factual attacks on him. He inserted the word, "Wrong" repeatedly. This technique must have worked for Trump in the past, but in the context of a presidential debate it is a disaster. Trump failed to understand that the same techniques proving that Melania Trump's speech included plagiarism will be used on his latest statements. 

It gets even worse than that. People have been archiving Trump's tweets. During the debate, Trump denied being a climate change denialist. Within moments, the internet was ablaze with people repeating his original statement about climate change. 

Even for the most durable Trump supporters, there has to be some cognitive dissonance developing. They can limit their television to Fox News and their radio to Sean Hannity, but at some point in the day, they will be confronted with the fact that Trump's words are not to be trusted. 

Sure, lots of hard-right Trump supporters will stick with him. They are obviously very good at denial and mental compartmentalization. But some people will feel the mental pressure, particularly when Trump's obvious lies are rubbed in their noses. 

How will they deal with questions like, "We all read his tweet saying that the Chinese invented the idea of global warming. How can he now say he didn't say that?" 

They will find it hard to come up with a believable answer. 

The important fact that has been largely ignored is this: Trump delivers his lies in a tone of voice that is very convincing. He sounds certain, even to the point of sounding irritated that someone could ever question his veracity. At some point, people will be confronted with the question, "Trump said it with complete conviction, but it's demonstrably a lie. How do you explain that?" 

There is a real possibility here for improvement in the national temperament. As the skepticism about Trump's honesty is continually reinforced by stories in the press and the electronic media, some current Trump supporters will begin to waver. And as they waver on Trump, they will also waver (just a bit) on the right wing media. After all, it is the right wing media that have been feeding the Trump story to us. 

Does Fox lie intentionally? It's a question that many people have been avoiding, but some will begin to realize that it's time to ask that question. 

By the way, you may be asking, "what is the storyline on Clinton?" That's a good question, and it's not well resolved as yet. But there is another answer that may be compelling. If Clinton wins, then her label will be the one word, "winner." We don't have much of a label on George W. Bush either, because labels are explanations for why a candidate did not win. Winners don't need labels. 

Addendum: Those weren't deer in the headlights, those were city employees 

During what would have otherwise been a sleepy afternoon at last Saturday's neighborhood council congress, a little bit of fun ensued. High ranking city employees were asked to explain the budget process. They did so very effectively. But when asked why the city was considering a refund to the Mariott Corporation for occupancy taxes, there was a sort of embarrassed pause. It was a deer in the headlights moment. One speaker explained that we were getting into the topic of subventions. It's a curious word, subventions. The questioner followed up, pointing out sarcastically that Mariott sure needed that money, nearly a million dollars. 

Those of us in the audience realized that we were meeting the people who work directly on making the sausage (to borrow from the old Bismarck line). Their job is to follow up on instructions from the City Council and the mayor. 

A thought ran through my mind. The residents of Los Angeles should receive notice of campaign donations to City Council members from companies that have some stake in a piece of legislation. Every single item on the City Council agenda should be checked for financial advantages going to specific companies. Donors and recipients should be listed on the Council's agenda. It wouldn't be the whole story, but it would be something.

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

-cw

GUEST COMMENTARY--Jesus. On Tuesday, America's trigger-happy police shot dead another unarmed man, this time in El Cajon in Southern California.

Police shot and killed Alfred Orlango, 30, reportedly for having an epileptic seizure while black; his sister had called for help after he began walking in traffic.

Police say they shot - and simultaneously tasered - him when he ignored their instructions to take his hand from his pocket and pulled out an object; no gun was found. Cell phone video shows scores of police and Orlango's sister wailing, “Oh my God. You killed my brother. I just called for help (and) you killed him.” As usual, officials urged calm and furious residents can't see why they should be.

“I’m Scared That I won’t Grow Up to be a Black Man”

That same day, the Charlotte City Council held its first meeting since the shooting death of Keith Scott, a father of seven, sparked sometimes violent protests against almost daily police shootings of black citizens repeatedly decried  as a moral, social and legal outrage as well as a public health epidemic. 

The meeting drew peaceful protesters and a crowd of about 50 people who spoke out against police violence. Among them were several children whose very presence offered a powerful reminder of the devastating effects of the carnage on our smallest citizens. Said Taje Gaddy, 10, "Every morning when I wake up, I’m scared that I won’t grow up to be a black man."

“We Shouldn’t Have Tears”

The most heartbreaking testimony came from nine-year-old Zianna Oliphant (photo above), who tremulously told officials, "I come here today to talk about how I feel ..." Breaking down, audience members yelled support - "You're doing great! Do not stop!" - before she went on, tears streaming down her face.

"We are black people, and we shouldn’t have to feel like this ... I can’t stand how we are treated. It’s a shame that our fathers and mothers are killed and we can’t even see them anymore. It’s a shame that we have to go to their graveyard and bury them. We have tears and we shouldn’t have tears. We need our fathers and mothers to be by our side.”

When she finished, the room filled with protesters speaking the vital, righteous truth. "No Justice, No Peace," they chanted. "No justice, No Peace."

(Abby Zimet writes for Common Dreams where this perspective was first posted.)

-cw

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE-Friday, September 30, the LA City Council will convene to either place the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative on the March 7, 2017 ballot — or immediately adopt this citizen initiative word-for word, as required by law. 

Since the measure is an historic and fundamental reform of a City Council that has grown transfixed by cutting multimillion-dollar backroom real estate deals, we'll be at City Hall with a careful eye to possible political mischief aimed at keeping it off the ballot. 

“We” is the Coalition to Preserve LA, which has had a good month despite a bizarre opposition campaign, funded by three global billionaires, one from Australia and one from Miami, who had hoped to convince voters that we somehow plan to end rent control and “halt all development,” and other absurd conspiracy theories.

(Note: On Friday the Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted to place the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative on the March 7, 2017 ballot. Read that update here.)  

Ironic, then, to see the City Council schedule yet another backroom meeting for Friday, an “executive session,” to discuss possibly suing our movement. Such a bone-headed action would serve to further anger residents sick of surface street gridlock, destruction of neighborhood character, displacement of the working class and poor, and Wild West gentrification fueled by land speculators and skyscraper flippers. 

More likely, the City Council is not going to make such a mistake, and is merely holding yet another illegal backroom meeting, an “executive session” where no litigation is seriously discussed (the City Council is allowed to meet as a full body in private only to discuss lawsuits, nothing else). 

It's far more likely that any “executive session” held Friday will simply be another Brown Act violation, an illegal meeting at which much hand-wringing unfolds among City Council members concerning “what to do about” the tens of thousands of LA residents who say their communities are being paved over to provide skyrocketing profits to developers. 

The Coalition to Preserve LA will be just outside their door, to watchdog things — people like Jay Beeber, the folk hero who got rid of LA's hated red-light cameras. This San Fernando Valley resident proved that City Hall was lying when it said that the universally hated $465 red light camera tickets were reducing accidents. That was a lie. Beeber proved it — not one of the city's 50,000 municipal employees — by delving into the accident data itself. 

Also present on Friday will be attorney Grace Yoo, who has stared down well-connected political forces in Koreatown, where the pressure is on from City Hall to wipe out affordable neighborhoods because luxury skyscrapers are “inevitable.” The developer of one proposed 27-story edifice has already destroyed several affordable rentals and will wipe out even more if the City Council votes to approve his utterly illegal plan. 

This lack of planning — top city officials openly admit that their “customer” is developers, not city residents — has brought us predictable results: a steep vacancy rate of about 15% in all luxury housing built in the past 10 years, and skyrocketing homelessness fed by the loss of 22,000 affordable rent-stabilized rental units since 2000, now demolished or converted to condos. 

And endless gridlock on streets that cannot absorb the giant glass boxes marching across Los Angeles. 

It's no wonder that volunteers who support the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative hail from the Westside, Eastside, South LA, Wilshire District, Hollywood, West Adams, East and West Valley, San Pedro, Westchester, Northeast LA and scores of other communities. 

Naturally, I will be there on Friday, having been accused by our three billionaire opponents of personally promoting a “housing ban” — yet another conspiracy theory by the anti-campaign, which cannot beat us on the merits next March, and so has resorted to ridiculousness. 

Earlier this week, in an exchange on the NextDoor social media messaging system, I explained to West Valley residents that the busy U.S. Post Office in Woodland Hills is set for destruction. But even worse, after months of backdoor meetings with key City Council members, the developers had announced plans to build a massive 335-unit luxury housing project just a stone's throw from the 101 Freeway. In the works for a long time, this distinctly awful development was finally being sprung on the unpleasantly surprised neighborhood.

What makes freeway-adjacent housing bad development? We call them “Black Lung Lofts” at the Coalition, based on an LA Weekly cover story several years ago that delved into USC's landmark Children's Health Study into thousands of children who lived within two blocks of a freeway, or about 500 to 550 feet. USC researchers definitively showed that children's still-developing lungs (they develop until age 18) suffered high levels of permanent lung damage. 

The suffering and millions of dollars in medical care due to Black Lung Lofts will be vast, but at least we know about the threat to children now, and we can stop jamming children into housing within two blocks of freeways. 

But the City Council won't stop. Children suffering from millions of dollars in health damages must be weighed against their desires to run for higher office, after all. 

In Los Angeles, by the time a bad development like the Post Office luxury rental blob is unveiled to the neighbors, the deal has been cut in City Hall backroom meetings, the political palms greased. By the time such a project is publicly announced, the developer is all but assured a huge profit by being allowed to ignore the zoning to build as big as he wants. 

Our measure puts an end to these backroom deals, in which City Council members get rolled by developers, time and again — and LA residents suffer for it. 

But far more important than the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative's timeout on City Council backroom deals is the work we force them to proactively undertake. Our citizen intiative forces the City Council to, in essence, eat its vegetables rather than grab for the dessert: Come up with an actual General Plan — an integrated and interwoven plan for LA's parks, streets, sewers, housing, open space, safety services. 

That is actually the City Council's core job, to write one every five years. Yet it is a job they have refused to do since 2005, when they very quietly voted never to have to write another General Plan for Los Angeles.

True story: Members of our Coalition found the one-page document in which the City Council — the nation's highest-paid City Council with salaries of $189,041 a year — relieved itself of its fundamental duty of writing a General Plan. One City Hall elected official insisted to me recently that, “We had to do suspend writing a General Plan because it was during the Recession, and we had to put planning aside” to cope with other troubles. 

Interesting, how lying works — or doesn't work quite as well, lately — at City Hall. After all, the Recession was not yet upon us in 2005. In fact. 2005 saw a booming economy and an LA development frenzy similar to the one unfolding today. 

But City Hall elected leaders love their dessert — high-end wining and dining by the developers and their lobbyists — and hate eating their vegetables. Nobody is going to hand $100,000 to an LA politician's favorite charity or pet project because that Council member finally decided to lead an update of LA's cracking ancient water mains, or an effort to identify the water source that's going to feed City Hall's thirsty skyscrapers. 

So we'll be there on Friday, as the Los Angeles City Council undertakes a required, and some say historic, vote. To put a citizen initiative on the ballot measure that lets LA residents fix a broken system at City Hall.

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

-cw

PERSPECTIVE-Both the New York Times and LA Times have recently published informative articles about the status of public pensions, particularly Calpers. LA Times’ Jack Dolan and James Koren have provided sober analysis in recent weeks. 

The reporters have echoed the same concerns that I, Jack Humphreville, respected members of academia and many in other publications have been sounding for years – concerns over the diminishing sustainability of the defined benefit plans that almost every politician at the state and local government levels have ignored. A few, including Governor Brown and former Governor Schwarzenegger, have attempted modest reforms and failed, because of the death-grip public unions have on our elected officials. 

The NY Times article, by Mary Williams Walsh, is particularly interesting because it reads like a case study. For all intents and purposes, it is one. It deals with a small fund managed by Calpers. Since this particular fund is so small, it is easier for readers to wrap their heads around the math. But it is the same math behind every other defined benefit plan, large and small. Just as a lab experiment on a single cancerous cell can speak volumes about the greater disease, so can this case shed light on the cancer of public pensions. 

Basically, the problem boils down to using aggressive favorable assumptions to gauge the financial health of plans, plans which are required to fully guarantee the promises made to their members. The assumptions have masked the weakness of the underlying numbers. 

The important difference between a market vs actuarial approach to funding defined benefit plans is critical, as the article suggests. As the small pension unit in the article learned, Calpers charged them the market rate to liquidate the plan, which was a sum far greater than the actuarial value Calpers uses to assess the health of any plan. 

Quite a shock to the participants who assumed things were just peachy. 

Calpers wants it both ways: use the blue-sky view for public disclosure, but penalize participants based on reality. It’s called “having your cake and eating it too” (a few of my colleagues at CityWatch know how much I detest that expression, but it applies here.) 

The truth is, Calpers should not be hanging its hat on one approach vs the other. A range of values needs to be shared with the public, and funding should be based on at least a blend of outcomes.

That means either taxpayers fork over more money, or the participating employees contribute more. The taxpayers are already covering too much, not to mention bearing the risk if there are insufficient funds to pay participants. 

How much more participants should pay is arguable, but it would cause some degree of pain in any event – manageable pain. 

In the private sector, typical employees pay 6.2% for SSA retirement and contribute at least 6% into a 401K. State employees contribute anywhere from 5% to 11.5% of their salaries. Pretty good compared to the 12.2% absorbed by their counterparts. Safety workers are at the higher end, but can retire much earlier and collect up to 90% of their salaries. 

A private-sector worker would pay $1 million to purchase an annuity comparable to an average CalPERS’ benefit starting at age 60. A state employee earning an average of $100,000 and contributing 10% would pay in $300,000 over 30 years in gross terms. Obviously, discounting the amount would lower it considerably. 

That’s a pretty large gap. In any event, Calpers would still be a good deal for employees if their contribution rates doubled. 

And why not? 

Investors pay more, in the form of a lower yield, for less exposure to risk. Why shouldn’t public employees pay a premium for what is a risk-free, lifetime benefit? 

The system is not going to collapse tomorrow. It’s similar to a sinking ship, which takes on water but stays afloat … that is until buoyancy is lost. 

When that happens, it goes down faster than the Edmond Fitzgerald. 

Time to start pumping and sealing the leak.

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

ROAD DIET RAGE--I have had the misfortune to be elected to the board of my local Neighborhood Council, which is involved in promoting a road diet for the Miracle Mile’s Sixth Street, a one-mile stretch of roadway that saw 135 recorded collisions between 2011 and 2015, including one death, and several more deaths since then. Note that many minor crashes are not reported to the CHP’s database.

Naturally, a handful of particularly blustery sorts are aghast that traffic might actually be slowed down by a road diet, and predict every sort of calamity to ensue should it be approved. Of course, they ignore the very real blood-and-bones calamities that occur nearly every month on this stretch. So I shall reprint for you the letter I just sent to our Nextdoor group, where the self-righteously indignant have been raging.

When you look at ACTUAL road diet implementations, you find that they do not increase congestion–in fact, they often alleviate it slightly. I have previously posted links to the dozens of studies from all over the US and the world that support this assertion. The intuitive is rarely related to actuality. The Federal Highway Administration recommends road diets for streets such as Sixth as “a proven safety countermeasure.” Bike lanes are often used, as I have mentioned several times, as techniques for creating road diets, but, although several of you would “never ride” your bikes on Sixth, I do, every day, and so do many dozens of others. It is a major bicycle commuting corridor.

Convenient tax-subsidized parking and saving a few seconds on a one-mile passage are not valid justifications for terrorizing all the pedestrians and cyclists who use the street, as well as the many motorists (and even building owners) who have suffered property damage and injuries, including severe ones, caused by Sixth Street’s “dangerous by design” configuration,.

Barbara G. presented her proposal, and went far over the time allotted for comments, getting more of her say in than anyone else, including board members, but the majority of the attendance was not convinced.

I have been studying road diets and related interventions for twenty years, and I am convinced that it is right for Sixth Street. I have lived near Burnside and Sixth for sixteen years now, and I have personally seen the carnage.

Listen, if you hate the road diet, write Ryu. If you support the road diet, write Ryu. His email is [email protected].

I have seen the bodies. I have heard the testimonies of fear. Neighbors are afraid to walk on the sidewalks–on the sidewalks! A handful of people shouldn’t have the power to condemn their neighbors to death and terror for the sake of a few seconds’ “convenience.”

And for your further delectation, this all-too-appropriate comment from Minnesota, entitled, “A Cure for Fear of Parking Loss.” 

(Richard Risemberg is a writer. His current professional activities are focused on sustainable development and lifestyle. This column was posted first at Flying Pigeon. ) 

-cw

GUEST COMMENTARY--Metro’s Measure M on the November ballot adds LA County’s fourth half-cent transportation sales tax increase since 1980, and gives Metro two full cents in “forever” sales taxes. But, is Metro’s Plan as advanced in Measure M really perfect enough to cast in concrete for perpetuity? The Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association has studied Metro’s transportation plan for more than two years and wanted to support it. Unfortunately, we believe the plan is flawed by five inherent weaknesses and we must recommend a NO vote. Let’s give Metro a couple of years to perfect their plan for the 2018 ballot. 

We agree that Los Angeles County desperately needs better transportation solutions – to move people more effectively on streets, freeways and in public transportation. 

Taxpayers have been contributing to Metro’s coffers since 1980 when they approved Measure A, Metro’s first half-cent forever sales tax. They again ponied up in 1990 with Measure C, Metro’s second half-cent forever sales tax. In 2008, they passed Measure R, Metro’s third half-cent sales tax, which was not forever but expires in 2037. As a result, we are currently paying a 1-1/2 cent sales tax to Metro, which brought them about $2.3 billion in FY2014. 

And now, we are being asked to pass Measure M, adding a fourth half-cent forever sales tax. It also removes the expiration date from Measure R to make it a forever tax as well. So, if taxpayers pass Measure M, we will all be paying a two-cent transportation sales tax in perpetuity. For example, LA City’s sales tax will rise to 9 1/2 percent – and stay at least that high forever! Is Metro’s plan really perfected enough to warrant this? 

We give Metro credit for working hard on the plan -- with the County, its 83 cities and its unincorporated areas, looking at hundreds of projects across nine subregions. Using a bottom-up selection process, Metro used local input to focus on the 39 major highway and transit projects listed in their August 2016 Measure M Flyer – “Facts About The Los Angeles County Traffic Improvement Plan.” 

The key questions are whether these projects are good enough to truly improve the County’s traffic gridlock and whether we can be sure the projects get built as promised. We think the answer to both questions is no, because Metro’s plan is flawed by five weaknesses: 

• Guarantees are weak; 

• Parking plan is weak; 

• Management capability is weak; 

• Route implementation is weak; and 

• Long-term public commitment is weak. 

Guarantees are Weak 

Measure M does not include strong guarantees that promised projects will really be built – and as we know, Metro has reneged on promises before. 

Look at Metro’s 1980 ballot measure brochure transit route map on the left. This was Metro’s promise for its first half-cent transportation sales tax. There’s a line from Sylmar to Long Beach. There’s another line from El Monte to San Pedro. And another from Burbank Airport to Canoga Park. But none of these were ever built. 

Oh yes, the Orange Line busway in the Valley is similar to the Canoga Park route, but it was not built with Metro funds (former Assembly Speaker, now Senator Bob Hertzberg found the funds.) 

The Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association was worried about promised projects being built and identified this as a key concern in our March recommendations letter to Metro. We told them that ironclad written guarantees are absolutely necessary for Measure M’s success. 

Measure M does include some new provisions that help ensure that projects will be built. For example, paragraph 11.a of Measure M’s implementing ordinance provides that “the Metro Board of Directors may amend the ‘Schedule of Funds Available’ … to accelerate a project, provided that any such amendments shall not reduce the amount of funds assigned to any other project or program … or delay the Schedule of Funds Available for any other project or program.” 

In other words, you can’t rob one project to pay for another. This is good. But, when Metro CEO Phil Washington spoke at our August Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association meeting, we asked him a question about guarantees – expecting him to quote this paragraph. 

Inexplicably, he instead talked about the Measure’s Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee and how they would ensure projects are built. How does a seven-member committee of technical specialists hired and fired by Metro ensure taxpayers that their projects are built? No way! It seems that Metro is planning for flexibility to do what it wants rather than what the public wants. Maybe the committee should be nine members from the public – one for each of the nine subregions that Metro used to develop its bottom-up plan? 

Vote NO – Give Metro two years to develop ironclad guarantees. 

Parking Plan Is Weak 

The key to any public transportation system is strong ridership – make it easy for people to get to stations. Unfortunately, Metro’s Measure M includes no parking plan. In fact, Metro’s proposed Measure M Ordinance includes the word “parking” only once, and then it’s about bicycle parking, not car parking. And, Metro’s April 2016 Active Transportation Strategic Plan also only addresses bicycle parking. So, why is Metro ignoring parking? 

We met with Metro’s new Director of Parking Management and know that Metro is beginning to work on a parking plan. But, it is not ready yet – and shouldn’t a parking plan be part of Measure M right now – not later? Other transportation systems in major metropolitan areas have learned that parking is necessary to secure ridership. In fact, the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association sent Metro a detailed letter in June explaining how Washington DC had drastically increased automobile parking to improve ridership. And, we don’t even have a parking plan? Are we supposed to walk or ride our bikes to a station four miles away? 

Vote NO – Give Metro two years to include a detailed parking plan in their ballot measure. 

Management Capability Is Weak 

Metro doesn’t have a good track record managing large transportation projects. A few examples are the original tunneling problems on the Red and Purple subway lines, the lack of sufficient rail cars on the brand new Expo Line, and the massive overruns and schedule delays on the recent I-405 improvement project, including a $400 million lawsuit against Metro by the project contractor. 

Now Metro is asking voters to approve a massive transportation plan where multiple huge projects will be built at the same time. Are we to expect that Metro’s management capability has so improved over the last few years? The answer is very probably no. At our August Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association meeting, Metro CEO Phil Washington told us that he is working on a detailed program management plan. But working on a plan and having a complete management capability are two different things. Is Metro really ready? We don’t think so. 

Vote NO – Give Metro two years to prove they have a strong management capability in place. 

Route Implementation Is Weak 

Rapid transit must have effective routes and fast vehicles. You can have a great route, but implement it with a slow bus or tram and ridership will not materialize. We fear that Metro’s plan suffers weak route implementation. Let’s look at some illustrative examples in the San Fernando Valley. 

There are seven major Valley projects in Metro’s plan, as listed here by opening year. Together, they form a rectangular route from Van Nuys to Warner Center to Canoga Park to Sylmar and back to Van Nuys, with offshoot lines through the Sepulveda Pass and to the Red/Gold Lines. But while the routes look effective, their implementation does not. It raises some serious questions about Metro’s plan for the Valley – and the entire County. 

Why, for instance, are the first four Valley projects all busways? Probably because busways are cheap and quicker to build. But, they are slow and lack the capacity of rail. We know – the Valley’s Orange Line is a dedicated busway that was over-capacity on the day it opened. But, not to worry, the Orange Line is being improved by Project 4 – except that this project simply adds a very few grade separations to the existing busway – and still leaves many street crossings. 

Again, not to worry, the Orange Line is converted to light rail with Project 7. But, it will still have many at-grade street crossings. And, this project does not open until 2057 – one of the very last Measure M projects completed. Even when the project is complete, the Valley route rectangle will only have rail on two of its four sides, and busways on the other two. And we all know that once these busways are in place, it will be decades before they might be upgraded. So, expect to be stuck with the projects we start with. 

Yes, this is bad implementation. Metro is telling the Valley that we should be happy with slower, less-efficient transit. Metro’s Red and Purple Lines are light-rail subways operating in downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and the Westside. Metro’s Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines are ground-level rail running from downtown to Long Beach, Santa Monica, and Azusa, with a few routes even having dedicated rights-of-way. And, the Valley is supposed to be thrilled with slow busways running through busy intersections. We’re not. And, neither are other parts of the County that Measure M is shortchanging. 

Vote NO – Give Metro two years to fix the implementation problems in their plan. 

Long-Term Pubic Commitment Is Weak 

When Metro began planning for Measure M many years ago, they started with a 40-year sales tax increase built around a 40-year bottom-up plan. The tax would generate more than $120 billion over the plan’s 40-year period, and Metro would spend this on critical highway and transit projects. So far, so good! But, in July, when Metro realized that they needed to accelerate many project schedules to attract voters, Measure M became a forever tax that never ends. Here’s the catch: Metro changed to a forever tax but didn’t commit to a future bottom-up public planning process once their 40-year plan is finished. 

The Measure M Ordinance – the document that implements the ballot measure – has no specific provisions for detailed public involvement in another bottom-up process to select the next set of projects after 2057. Sure, that seems like a long time from now for some of us, but not for our children and grandchildren. Don’t they deserve a commitment that Metro will keep them involved? Metro is committing taxpayers to a forever tax without a forever plan – and that’s a serious flaw. 

Decisions about public funding of projects should be made by the public, not politicians. 

Vote NO – Give Metro two years to develop a commitment to public participation in future planning and correct the other weaknesses in their plan.

(Bob Anderson is a board member of the Sherman Oaks Homeowner Association. He can be reached at [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

Tags: Bob Anderson, Sherman Oaks Homeowner Association, Measure M, Metro, SF Valley transportation