LOS ANGELES

LOS ANGELES COUNTY--One of these Tuesdays the LA County Board of Supervisors plans to vote on whether to grant a 60-year lease to MDR Boat Central, L.P. and so remove the final obstacle to that company’s construction of an 80 ft. high automated dry stack boat storage facility which will extend 11,600 square ft. over the water. (Photo of proposed project above.) 

The vote should be continued until after the forthcoming election and subsequent installation of District 4’s next County Supervisor. It’s the people of District 4 who will be most directly affected by the project. 

The dry stack boat storage facility is an ineffective solution in search of a problem. As we reported in an earlier CityWatch piece, Marina del Rey doesn't happen to have a shortage of affordable dry stack facilities and boat slips; and contrary to what the Coastal Commissioners were led to believe (during a festival of ex parte meetings with the applicant,) there's only one operational, fully automated dry stack boat storage facility in the world. It's associated with the neighboring luxury condominium complex and does not even have the ability to store non-luxury sized boats. We could go on. 

Far more important are the voices of the people who use and love Dock 52. No one is more eloquent on the topic than one of the public speakers at a recent public hearing on the project. What follows are the words of Dr. Patrick O'Heffernan, edited only for space:  

“Dock 52 is more than a parking lot and a boat ramp. It is a community resource used by people from around the county. On any given Sunday morning you will see my club there with thirty or forty people. You will see other bike clubs, many who are African American, as is my club. You will see groups of people in buses and vans from Koreatown to go fishing. You will see church groups who use this as a stage for their fundraising. This is more than a parking lot. It is a community resource. 

“I did a little survey of my own and found that people come from at least five different congressional districts in Los Angeles to be here. They come from Menlo Park, from west Adams to east Compton to the Valley, all over. One of the reasons that they come here is this is the only free parking lot in the Marina and there are many, many families and many, many groups that get together to come down there with their children and can spend the day over on the bridge, over by the Ballona Creek fishing, teaching their children how to fish, and they won't do it if they had to pay for parking. 

When you look at social benefits of Dock 52 and begin to calculate those, and there are many of you that do that, you see that any benefits that might accrue to the 235 people that might possibly use some of the slips in this, some of the storage in this -- there is no question. It fails a cost benefit analysis for the same reason it fails the social benefits. The social benefits accrue to 200 people or less, depending or whether or not the facility is used and to the investors, but thousands of people use Dock 52 over the year. They use it for parking to go into the path. They use it for fishing. They use it for boat launching. Thousands of people use it, so when you balance that against the possible utility of 200 people with their boats, there is no question." 

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

EASTSIDER-Every so often I forget that there is City Hall villainy over and beyond the Northeast’s very own trio of Jose Huizar, Gilbert Cedillo, and Mitch O’Farrell. Although led by Jose Huizar, as the Chair of the PLUM Committee, I do believe that this gang has approved enough mega-development to make the land subside by at least ten feet, and maybe even cause a shift in the tectonic plates. Heck, Eric Garcetti was a piker compared to these guys -- at least until he became Mayor and had more land to sell off. 

On the other hand, a CityWatch reader contacted me with yet a different dastardly bend over, kiss the developer and sell out the community mega-development act perpetrated by another one of our model-of-integrity City Council members -- this time, Mike Bonin (CD 11). Take a look at the picture of the Martin Expo Town Center (photo above.) It reminds me of some planetary headquarters of the evil empire in a Star Wars movie.

Located on Bundy and Olympic Blvd., this monster ought to permanently block the ability of anyone to get from downtown LA to the Westside and vice versa. Not to mention that the folks who live there won’t be able to get anywhere at all. Proponents note that it’s being built near the Expo Line extension, I suppose implying, yet again, that mass transit will eliminate the need for cars in Los Angeles. But I seem to remember that the Expo Line is already overburdened with riders, so maybe this project can create a first in LA: Metro gridlock on one of their routes. 

So back to Mr. Bonin, the replacement for Councilmember Bill Rosendahl. Bonin really makes some of us rue the untimely demise of his former boss: he isn’t a Bill Rosendahl. For those of you who remember the Airbnb wars, Mr. Bonin was the author of that fatuous statement that he supported “good short-term rentals” and opposed “bad short-term rentals.” What a guy. 

You might also remember Mr. Bonin for being the second to Herb Wesson’s original Airbnb motion, even while his constituents in Venice were being illegally evicted from their rent-controlled units that were replaced with Airbnb hotels. In fact, Councilmember Bonin is so beloved in Venice that some there are attempting get out of Los Angeles completely and form their own city, a move referred to as Vexit.  

Bonin’s Deal Hits a Bump 

So what’s new with Bonin’s dialing for dollars on the Martin Expo Town Center? 

Here are the details: In order to build the monster Martin Expo Town Center, the Council has to fiddle with the City’s General Plan to change the designation of the area from Light Manufacturing to General Commercial. This is not trivial, especially since the General Plan has not been changed for something like 20 years and going from a Cadillac dealership to a huge mixed-used mega-development is a huge change. We won’t even get into Community Plans. But there is a process that should be followed. 

On the same PLUM Committee agenda that lists the Martin Expo item is another item, 14-1719, regarding possible zone changes for a project in the Valley. In this case, it looks like they got it right by making the Planning Department, in conjunction with the City Attorney, prepare a report regarding possible zone change options. 

So why didn’t they do the same for the Martin Expo project? How about because Mr. Bonin has already partaken of the developer’s kool-aid? 

Tuesday, September 20, was the last day for Council action on the General Plan Amendment/Zone Change for the Martin Expo Town Center. If the Council didn’t act by then, it would be goodbye to whatever goodies Bonin stands to get. But it turns out that there was a big “boo boo” in the PLUM Agenda: Planning filed a new Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the day of the PLUM meeting. This meant that the items were out of compliance with the Brown Act so the PLUM Committee wouldn’t be able to discuss or vote on the items. And the last day to act was coming up, which meant they wouldn’t be able to fix it by having the PLUM Committee re-agendize the item and get Council to act before September 20. 

For those who think I’m imagining things, the project was already set for the City Council meeting of Friday, September 16 -- obviously, assuming that the same PLUM Committee would have approved the project. 

But this is the City of Los Angeles, so there’s always a way to fix the error and still ram through the project. The “powers that be” had the PLUM Committee “waive consideration of item” and quickly put the project directly on the City Council agenda for September 20, the last day for action. And guess what the vote was? 

For a more detailed look at manipulation of the General Plan and planning in general in the City of Angels, take a look at Dick Platkin’s recent CityWatch articles. I particularly enjoyed, “Who’s In Charge at LA’s City Planning, the Queen of Hearts?”  

And why, pray tell, would a City Councilmember resort to such obviously disingenuous behavior, evading the very spirit of open government and the Brown Act? How about pushback from the affected communities that are refusing to roll over for this repurposing of a Cadillac dealership that will cause the wholesale destruction of their deeply affected neighborhoods? Irony intended. 

All you have to do is take a look at the coalition that organized to see why Mr. Bonin is trying to sneak this project by. It’s a pretty potent, activist set of folks -- the West of Westwood Homeowners Assn, West LA/Sawtelle Neighborhood Council, the Brentwood Homeowners Association and the Westwood South of Santa Monica Homeowners Association, to name a few. 

The Takeaway 

Sadly, Bonin is just a symptom of City Hall dysfunction. If you add up all of the recent actions by the City Council, I think the conclusion is inescapable. City Hall has contempt for our neighborhoods and Neighborhood Councils. Oh, they will have a Congress of Neighborhoods, and the elected officials will take pictures and hand out scrolls, but that’s it. Input not welcome. Charter reform? What Charter? 

In addition to our own experiences in Northeast LA, and the current Martin Expo Town Center contretemps of Mr. Bonin, here are a couple of other recent developments which demonstrate my point. 

First, as an exemplar of hubris, Council President Herb Wesson has announced that he will personally run Felipe Fuentes’ Council District (CD7) until next March when an election will take place. For those who missed this news item, Mr. Fuentes recently resigned his position to become a full time lobbyist in Sacramento. And no, I’m not making this up. 

But Herb says “not to worry” because he will not vote on items for Council District 7. In short, many of our best and vocal Neighborhood Councils in the Valley and foothill areas will be disenfranchised until we have results for next year’s election. Talk about taxation without representation. I thought Fuentes’ throwing the Sunland/Tujunga Neighborhood Council out of City offices was reprehensible. But, boy, did I underestimate Herb’s ability to manipulate the system. This one was so raw it even took the LA Times by surprise. 

Second, Mike Bonin’s next door neighbor, Joe Buscaino (CD15,) recently blew off the San Pedro Neighborhood Council to unilaterally do his own “homeless deal.” 

It’s really a shame. Mr. Buscaino, a former LAPD officer, got elected on an honest, open and transparent platform back in the day when he replaced Janice Hahn. 

I am at a loss to explain the behavior of our elected officials. Honest. We pay them close to $200,00 a year (the highest in the U.S.) They really don’t have to do much except collect a paycheck, and yet they all seem compelled to bend over for real estate developers and billboard companies, betraying their fiduciary obligations as public servants.

Anyhow, to end on a more positive note, there are a couple of things we can do. On the development end, sign up and vote for the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. Campaign Director Jill Stewart’s very good article about it is here.  Second, the Neighborhood Councils have to figure out how to get together and organize on their own, knowing that BONC, DONE and the City Attorney are not our friends. LANCC is the logical place, but to make that work we need a charismatic figure who is willing to step up and reinvigorate the NCs into being the check and balance on City Hall that Charter Reform envisioned. 

Any takers?

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

SPORTS POLITICS--You may have heard that the National Football League’s Rams are back in Los Angeles. The football is no doubt exciting, but the team’s presence has also elevated Southern California conversations about parking, congestion, transit, and traffic. 

Now through 2018, the Rams play home games at the Coliseum in Exposition Park, a stone’s throw from the Metro Expo Line. (see photo above) In the future, the Rams will be playing at a new stadium under construction in Inglewood. The new stadium, expected to be completed by 2019, will be just over a mile from Metro’s under-construction Crenshaw/LAX light rail line. 

At the Rams first regular season home game, the Los Angeles Times reported parking prices surging well over $100. Rather than proclaiming parking doom, the paper interviewed parking expert Don Shoup, explained “congestion pricing,” and declared high prices to be “good news for mass transit backers.” Metro’s The Source reported that 26 percent of Rams attendees, 21,000 of the 80,000, took transit to the game. This is nearly quadruple transit’s seven percent share of LA County commute trips. 

Though SBLA will offer some advice after the jump, first a couple of caveats: 

• First, kudos to Metro for already doing a good job managing football crowds. During pre-season games, Metro anticipated and managed serious crowds. Metro promoted transit to get to games, added signage, increased service on the Silver and Expo lines, and deployed staff to manage queues. According to a staff report, Metro transit carried 10,600 and 12,200 riders to the Rams preseason games, representing 13 and 20 percent of the attendance. 

• Second, crowding expectations (and transit promotion) should be realistic. Fans should expect post-game transit to be packed, as it is around the world when big events let out. The goal is crowded trains and buses full of fans. Too many riders is a nice problem to have – it makes transit operate in a more efficient, more cost-effective way. 

• Third, though these crowds are big, 20,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to 1.4 million weekday boardings systemwide. Football stadiums are important to serve, but they deliver up riders only a half-dozen or so Sunday afternoons a year. This tail should not wag the entire dog. Adding tons of service could mean tons of cost to Metro, given that transit rides are subsidized. It is important not to mortgage the system’s daily ridership to chase a massive infrequent bolus. Nonetheless, like CicLAvia, game day ridership can be a sort of gateway drug. Ride a bus to a Rams game today, then maybe ride a bus to work in the near future. 

The Source asked for suggestions on what Metro can do differently. SBLA has some ideas below. 

These are all relatively low cost programs, not infrastructure-intensive people-mover construction. None of these will carry tens of thousands of riders on day one, but expanding transportation options for game day can give people choices. Diverting a thousand fans here and a hundred fans there can take the edge off of the surge that occurs at the end of the game. In expanding options, it is important to benefit not only sports fans, but also provide ancillary benefits to the rest of Metro’s riders, and to the neighborhoods impacted by car-choked streets around the stadium. 

1. Promote Walking – From the Coliseum, it is a two mile walk to LA Trade Tech Blue Line station, or a three mile walk to downtown LA’s 7th and Metro Red Line station. Those walks will not be for everyone, but if a couple hundred fans walk, then they are healthier, happier and the Expo Line peak crowding is reduced. Perhaps Metro and the Rams (perhaps partnering with public health community groups like LA Walks) could form some sort of Rams Walking Club. The club could operate a sort of walking school bus that would have regularly scheduled walks on pre-arranged routes. Perhaps there could be incentives, such as Rams Walking Club caps or T-shirts, or even some kind of promotional event along the way. It is probably too much to ask that a Rams player might make a guest appearance along the way, but perhaps walks could be led by a costumed mascot giving out Rams pennants, so the walk becomes a sort of moving pep rally for the team. Walk trips could be logged and entered into a drawing for prizes. Even if walkers did not walk the entire way, organized walk trips could open additional much-lower-cost car parking, such as at or near LA Trade Tech College. 

• Extend downtown L.A. Metro Bike Share – Metro’s current bike-share system already extends to LA Trade Tech, two miles from the Coliseum. It may be worthwhile to add a bike-share hub near the stadium. This would serve to connect Rams fans to downtown LA where they could connect with extensive rail and bus networks there. This could relieve eastbound Expo Line crowding, as riders could bike to the Blue, Red or even Gold lines. Perhaps there is a way to set up a staffed temporary bike-share drop-off/pick-up area to test the idea. This has been done in other cities, including in New York City during their open streets events.

• Bike Parking – In San Francisco, the SF Bicycle Coalition runs valet bike parking for Giants baseball home games.  A similar arrangement could be made with an L.A. bicycle non-profit, such as the L.A. County Bicycle Coalition. Bikes would need a convenient parking area, but bike parking takes up a lot less space than car parking (a standard car parking space easily accommodates a dozen bikes)  so the space would not need to be massive. If the rams are able to provide space for free, a nominal parking charge (say $1-2 per bike) could cover staffing. It might make sense to combine private bike parking area and the public bike-share docking mentioned above.

• Shuttle Buses – Similar to Hollywood Bowl shuttles, Metro’s Dodger Stadium Express, and programs in other regions, Metro could operate fixed-route, potentially pre-paid shuttle service to the stadium. This service makes sense only if it does not require major subsidies. Better to improve existing rail and bus lines on game days than to create low ridership boutique new service.

• After-Game Activities at Exposition Park – One way to reduce peak traffic for transit (and for cars) is to get people to stick around after the game, and get home later. Metro and/or the Rams could work with Exposition Park museums to host special open house extended hours that coincide with game-end times. Perhaps there could be a rotating schedule between various museums to focus attendance to make it worthwhile. Alternately, there could be entertainment (a small concert, a mascot) for transit riders while they wait to board.

• Promote Taxi and Ride-Hail ride splitting – From comments, some transit riders looked at large lines for Expo and decided to take Lyft or Uber instead. Ride-hail cars contribute to traffic congestion around the stadium. To the extent that taxis and ride-hail companies can encourage fans to pile in and pool their rides and fill these vehicles, they will serve fans more efficiently and lessen their adverse impact on nearby streets. 

While these recommendations apply to Rams games, they also apply to other sports and other stadiums, and even concerts and other events. Even though the Rams will be moving in 2019, Exposition Park will continue to host large-scale events, including, soon, Major League Soccer.  Programs piloted now could be transposed to Inglewood in 2019. 

What do you think readers? Would these programs work? How do you think Metro should serve game day crowds?

(Joe Linton is the editor of StreetsblogLA ... where this perspective was first posted. He founded the LA River Ride, co-founded the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, worked in key early leadership roles at CicLAvia and C.I.C.L.E., served on the board of directors of Friends of the LA River, Southern California Streets Initiative, and LA Eco-Village.) Photo: Metro.

VOX POP-Last week, Los Angeles music fans were shocked to learn that development firm GPI Companies may demolish the Amoeba Music building and construct a glass-and-steel skyscraper in its place — effectively ending Amoeba’s existence in Hollywood. But that, in fact, wasn’t the whole story.

What reporters didn’t reveal is the exact name of the developer, its big-money ties to City Hall and its involvement in a controversial mega-project in North Hollywood — which may signal what lies ahead for Amoeba Music and how the politically connected developer will be a difficult adversary if Amoeba devotees try to save the cherished cultural treasure from destruction.

GPI Companies is another name for Goldstein Planting Investments, which is based in Los Angeles. According to its website, Goldstein Planting describes itself as “a real estate investment and development firm that pursues a targeted range of properties where value can be enhanced through repositioning, redevelopment, or increased operational efficiency.”

In other words, the developer doesn’t often buy a property and simply let it sit. Goldstein Planting does something with it — like build the kind of 20-story glass-and-steel skyscraper that may go up at 6400 Sunset Boulevard, where Amoeba Music currently stands. The developer bought the Amoeba Music building, located on a stretch of Sunset Boulevard that developers have been actively seeking to construct tall mega-projects, for $34 million in 2015.

Goldstein Planting would be a powerful, politically connected, deep-pocketed opponent for any grassroots movement trying to save the Amoeba Music building.

Since 2009, and especially within the past few years, the developer has spent at least $258,621 in high-priced lobbyists and campaign contributions to L.A. politicians, according to the city’s Ethics Commission. It’s a longtime method used by many development firms to get special favors from LA elected officials and bureaucrats — spread around big cash at City Hall.

The Amoeba Music building stands in the heart of City Council District 13, which is represented by Mitch O’Farrell. Council members have incredible power and influence at City Hall when it comes to planning and land-use policy in their individual districts, and developers know that all too well.

Since 2013, Goldstein Planting Investments and its representatives have given a sizable total of $7,700 to Councilman O’Farrell — a sure-fire way to grab a politician’s attention. O’Farrell received $3,500 in campaign contributions and $4,200 for his “legal defense fund.”

Goldstein Planting Investments and its representatives also contributed $4,700 to Mayor Eric Garcetti’s 2017 re-election campaign.

In total, according to the city’s Ethics Commission, Goldstein Planting Investments forked over an eye-popping $45,700 in campaign contributions to LA politicians since 2009 — 17 percent of which went to O’Farrell.

In addition, the developer has spent a total of $212,921 on high-priced, City Hall lobbyists, who then curry favor with LA politicians and bureaucrats. It’s the kind of insider access that everyday Angelenos can never afford to buy — and they shouldn’t need to.

But that’s how LA’s rigged and broken planning and land-use system works in favor of deep-pocketed developers like Goldstein Planting Investments.

Goldstein Planting Investments is currently teaming up with another wealthy developer, San Francisco-based Merlone Geier Partners, to build a controversial mega-project called NoHo West in a low-slung, middle-class neighborhood in North Hollywood.

The two developers stand to make a whopping $25.2 million in annual revenue from 642 luxury, rental units at the proposed site — and millions more from retail and office space. Community people have complained that the mega-project will overwhelm their neighborhood with traffic. Although Goldstein Planting and Merlone Geier stand to make hundreds of millions off NoHo West over the years, the developers have not offered substantive measures to mitigate the traffic.

LA Councilman Paul Krekorian, who represents North Hollywood, completely supports the mega-project — and has not used his power and influence to help the NoHo West-adjacent residents.

NoHo West is one of the largest mega-developments in the San Fernando Valley — and Los Angeles County. It signals the kind of gigantic projects Goldstein Planting may continue to build in the future — like replacing the Amoeba Music building, a vital, culturally important independent music and film store, with a corporate 20-story skyscraper.

The Los Angeles Times tried to play down the possible demolition of the Amoeba Music building, but judging from Goldstein Planting Investments’ track record, the developer has the political clout and business inclination to do exactly that. 

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

-cw

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-A reporter’s question about real estate trends in Los Angeles led me to ask and hopefully answer two questions. 

Q:  What do we mean by “development?”

A:  Development includes the entire built environment. It is not strictly private speculation in real estate projects by individual and institutional investors. 

Q:  Does Los Angeles need more “development?”

A:  LA absolutely needs more development, but it should be the right type of development. When it comes to private investment, density is not an issue, as long as it is it planned development. When it comes to public investment, development should also be linked to the City’s planning and budgeting processes. 

Now, the longer version: 

Development is a misleading term for all investment in the built environment. The term is intended to give private real estate speculation a veneer of respectability. The role of this euphemism is to camouflage the impetus of private development: speculative investment with a high rate or return regardless of adopted laws or neighborhood context. 

In contrast, when public investment creeps into view, whether water mains, fire stations, schools, or hundreds of other municipal facilities, “development” suddenly goes missing. Apparently the primacy of the public sector in planning, implementing, and maintaining this part of the built environment does not generate enough return on investment for the private sector and our public officials to consider these projects to also be “development.” 

Most of what they consider to be “development,” probably around 90 percent of private projects, straightforwardly complies with the City’s legally adopted zones, building codes, and General Plan land use designations. But, some of these projects are not consistent with zones and plans. They require a special review by the Department of City Planning.  Most of these cases are small, such as over-height fences. But a tiny fraction is over-sized mega-projects. They are straightforwardly illegal, and only the City Council can legalize them through special ordinances that change the underlying General Plan designation, zone, and/or height district. These legislative actions are the spot-zoning cases that the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative intends to stop. This Initiative would spell the end to parcel level projects that get approved because of slick lobbyists and lawyers, AstroTurf organizations, political contributions, and unverifiable promises of jobs, transit use, air pollution reductions, and off-site quasi-public improvements.

Los Angeles needs much more development: As for the developments that Los Angeles needs, investment in the city's public areas should be the highest priority. (Photo above: My Figueroa, a new public development, ready to break ground.) These developments make the most difference, especially for mitigating and adapting to climate change. This is where Los Angeles is most vulnerable, especially when compared to the unconvincing need for more luxury high-rise apartments serving occasional ultra-rich visitors. 

This is why Los Angeles needs many billions dollars in public development, and why it needs investment in projects that can dramatically change the character of the entire city. While the following list is hardly definitive, it should help you understand some of the investment that our elected officials should proactively prioritize, instead of unplanned, ad hoc mega-projects hawked by private investors wearing expensive tailored suits. 

In my list I have focused on public investments that are low hanging fruit and that will either slow climate change or help us adapt to climate impacts already underway. 

• Los Angeles urgently needs a drought tolerant urban forest in its public and private areas. Median strips, sidewalk planting areas, and parks are in dreadful shape, as well as most yards. Many of the city’s trees are dying because they are not drought tolerant, and in to many areas there are long, bare stretches without any trees at all. But, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, and Culver City have all demonstrated that a drought tolerant urban forest is possible. Therefore, the only question is how to make trees, not real estate speculation, the priority of our elected officials. 

• In conjunction with a drought tolerant urban forest, Los Angeles urgently needs to reinstate and upgrade the LADWP program to replace lawns, whether in parkways, front yards, or back yards, with drought tolerant gardens.

• Decentralized rooftop solar is begging for a massive roll out because of LA’s sunny climate. It not only makes houses and businesses energy independent, but excess power flows back to the LADWP’s grid, reducing its need to burn highly polluting coal and natural gas in distant power plants. 

• Natural disasters, whether fires or earthquakes, are waiting to happen. Our vast network of overhead utility wires and aging underground water, gas, and sewage lines are highly vulnerable. It might be expensive, but LA needs an integrated public works program to underground above ground utilities, while replacing and upgrading the systems that are already undergrounded. If streetlights and gas lines are already buried, why not electricity and telecommunications? 

• METRO’s plans, now on the ballot through Measure M, will go a long way to accelerate the transition from private cars to many alternative transportation modes, including repairing LA’s beat up sidewalks to promote walking. But, why should these improvements depend on a regressive sales tax, when trillions have already been thrown down the rat holes of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya  – with no end in sight, regardless of who wins the Presidential election?

Of course, none of this public development happens by itself. We cannot depend on a private tycoon to knock on the door of your local Councilmember with an offer to repair miles of broken sidewalks on his dime. Instead, it requires a rigorous planning process, including taking LA’s old infrastructure and public services General Plan elements out of mothballs so they can be updated. It also requires an annual monitoring program, and finally it requires that these plans be integrated into the City’s annual budget. 

It might also require a few fiscal changes, such as fixing Proposition 13, reprioritizing the City’s budget, and reinstating many Federal urban housing and transportation programs that slowly bit the dust during and after the Vietnam War. The money is undoubtedly there, and our elected officials need to tap into it.

(Dick Platkin reports on local city planning issues for CityWatch. He is a veteran city planner and welcomes comments and corrections at [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

RANTZ & RAVEZ--Did the City of Los Angeles ever promise to provide you with efficient and timely service? 

Since preparing the RantZ and RaveZ articles, I have been on the lookout for stories that illustrate the functions of Los Angeles. Good and/or Bad. Unfortunately, I keep finding problems and very few positive items to illustrate to the readers of my column. 

A recent simple phone call to 311 is a prime example of the poor service the city provides taxpayers. 311 is the phone number to call in Los Angeles when you need to connect with a city department or elected official. It is an information service for LA City residents and business owners. 

On September 12, 2016, at 3:40 in the afternoon I phoned 311 attempting to obtain the phone number of an elected official’s valley office. I waited a total of 6 minutes until the operator answered the call. Six minutes waiting for the operator to simply answer the call and provide me with the contact number. I have no idea how many operators work the 311 system, but I do know that the city can do much better in serving the people who pay the taxes and fees in Los Angeles. 

The next time you need to connect with an LA City Dept., try using the 311 System and see how efficient it is for you. It is truly a RantZ this time around.

What the Hell is City Controller Ron Galperin doing to protect the city’s tax dollars? 

The LA Times has rated Mr. Galperin, the elected City Controller, as a “C in Leadership and Effectiveness.”With that type of rating by the most Liberal and bankrupt LA Times, what can we honestly expect from the elected official charged with maintaining Integrity, Honesty and Efficiency in all city operations? 

Shortly after being elected to the Controller’s Office, Mr. Galperin challenged the council approved agreement between the DWP and the Union representing the workers that provides funds for the safety and training of DWP employees. The matter was a major news story at the time and ended up in court. In the end, the union received all the funds they were due and Mr. Galprin ran back into his office and realized that he tackled a powerful union with a legitimate safety and training fund and lost the battle. The Controller spent huge sums of money and personnel on his crusade that fizzled like a balloon without helium. 

While Mr. Galperin counts the pebbles at the asphalt plant and cans of paint at the paint shop, the city is on track to continue losing millions of dollars in all types of lawsuits. Has the Controller done anything to stem the tide of millions of dollars lost in all the lawsuits? The simple answer is NO. The following list is an example of payouts in litigation against the city and the taxpayers of LA. These claims have all been paid while the Controller’s office has been run by Mr. Ron Galperin who truly lacks Leadership and Effectiveness.   

1. $ 23.7 Million paid out in a Dangerous Intersection Death.
2. $ 950,000 in two cases involving homeless people.
3. $ 1.1 Million in a homeless case.
4. $ 725,000 in legal fees to lawyers in a homeless case.
5. $ 450,000 settlement by USC Students.
6. $ 750,000 settlement with former City Official.
7. $ 50,000,000 to DWP Customers.
8. $ Millions to multiple LAPD Officers involved in ticket Quotas.
9. $ 5.9 Million to a group of officers in a ticket quota case.
10. $ 10 Million paid out in ticket quota cases.
11. $13 Million is attorney fees involved in DWP Case. 

While the cases mount and the city continues to pay millions upon millions of dollars in case after case, Mr. Galperin completes audit reports on the amount of overtime city employees are paid for the work they do. 

With a reduced work force in the past, it is often necessary to work overtime to get the job done. Instead of working with the numerous city departments engaged in city projects and programs, he spends his time spinning his wheels trying to justify his position. I hope someone comes around that will turn the Controller’s office into the watchdog it is designed to be. 

For the record, I am viewing various elected offices to possibly run for in the future. Could it be Neighborhood Council, Mayor, Controller, State Senator or Assemblyman? Time will tell. I will keep you informed as the days roll along. 

ZINE ELECTION CARD, Cont.

While most of you will agree that transportation in the Los Angeles region is totally and unquestionably at a gridlock stage most of the time, what is the answer to free up our local roads and freeways so we can drive our vehicles at or near the speed limit.   Freeway congestion is a fact of life on all Los Angeles Freeways. Take for example the 101 in the San Fernando Valley. It is listed as the most congested freeway in America. 

Then we have the 405 Freeway with the Billion plus Dollar improvements. If you ever have the opportunity to commute on the 405, you will find that it is at gridlock stage most days just like many of the freeways in the Los Angeles area. 

The solution coming from the elected officials and Cal Trans involves lots of money. More and money to correct a situation that is not going to change as long as Los Angeles and the cities in this region have growing populations. 

Glendale and every other city in the Los Angeles Area are planning more and more housing developments. Thousands of new residential units are in the planning, development and building stage all over Southern California. 

The answer from elected officials is naturally more money. More of your money to fix a problem that is out control and just getting worse. Transportation officials are attempting to have hundreds of thousands of Southern California motorists give up their cars and opt for public transportation. 

One thing is for sure, in our generation and into the future, we are not going to give up our cars like other cities in America that have had efficient and public transportation for years. The cities on the East Coast have very efficient public transportation that the public uses on a regular basis. It will not happen here in my lifetime or yours. 

A transit tax of ½ cent sales tax added to the already approved ½ sales tax that was added a few years ago will bring our sales tax to 9 ½ cents. This is only the beginning. There are additional taxes being proposed by the City and County of Los Angeles. I say enough with the pie in the sky solutions. 

I urge you to read the ballot measure on the ½ Cent Transportation Sales Tax and VOTE NO. We must send a message to City Hall and say NO NEW Taxes …Vote NO on Measure M.

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

-cw

GELFAND’S WORLD--It's that time of year when the new neighborhood council members are trying to learn the ropes. Some do admirably well. Some not so much. The worst actors are the ones who think they already know everything. They figure they can get by on innate smarts without studying either the history of their organization or the nuts and bolts of parliamentary procedure. A committee meeting I attended the other evening demonstrated these points all too well. 

First a little glossary: When we take up a motion for discussion, it is said to be on the floor. When we decide to stop considering the motion, it goes back on the table. The use of such archaic sounding words is a matter of parliamentary history. These words may sound strange in the modern context, but they have the advantage that anywhere you go in the United States, you will be able to understand it when people use them. 

So there we were, sitting around the conference table. The group was discussing amending a motion which had been placed before us. The discussion wasn't very productive. We were all beginning to get the idea that we didn't have the information we needed to make a decision. The way to deal with this kind of problem is simply to remove the motion from consideration -- send it away to be taken up some other day, or possibly even forgotten entirely. 

This is what one of my colleagues did, by making a routine motion to Table the motion under consideration. (Technically speaking, the books refer to this as lay the motion on the table, but everybody understands Table as verbal shorthand.) This motion is not only routine, it is one of the most common of the ten or twelve that we ordinarily use. So what happened next? 

One of the newcomers objected to the motion to table, on the grounds that you couldn't do that while an amendment was being debated. Those of us who actually know something about parliamentary procedure just glanced at each other with raised eyebrows. I mean, you can search through the 700+ pages of Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, and you won't find a rule like that. In fact, numerous (much shorter) textbooks on how to use Roberts Rules discuss the use of the motion to Table under all sorts of conditions including the one I have just described. 

So once again, for the zillionth time, a committee had to deal with a time wasting mistake, due solely to the fact that a participant was ignorant of standard parliamentary procedure. As a result, we all had to wait while the rules were explained. 

This, at least, was an innocent mistake. It was dealt with by other members of the committee taking the newby to school, so to speak, on what was legal. 

There is another kind of rule misinterpretation that is more serious, because it goes to the question of whether the rights of all participants are being defended. 

If you read through Roberts Rules of Order carefully, you will begin to understand the basic philosophical principal that is implicit in the entire structure. All participants are equal. There is a presiding officer (whether we call him/her the chair or the president), but that person is simply first among equals. A chair who is properly trained will preside over a meeting with the intention of defending the rights of all participants. This principal is superior to the principal that the chair should also help the meeting to run efficiently. It's nice to do both, but violating peoples' rights to gain efficiency is not acceptable. 

No right is more fundamental than the right to be heard during a discussion. As parents say to children, "Everyone gets a turn, but you have to wait for your turn." That's the way it is supposed to be in a neighborhood council meeting -- everyone should be allowed a turn to speak. A neighborhood council is a government entity in which all participants are, by definition, equal. For some reason, a lot of elected governing board members fail to realize this truth. 

So there we were on another topic which also had engendered considerable discussion. One member of the committee apparently decided that he had heard enough debate and wanted it to stop. He said, "I call the question." What happened next is one of the most widespread errors that happen in meetings run under Roberts Rules. The effect, had it not been stopped by wiser heads, would have been to disenfranchise a number of other people who wanted to speak. 

The chair, new to the position, took the motion to call the question as having legal authority, and immediately called for the committee to vote on the item under discussion. This was ignorant, and wrong in many ways. The most egregious offense was that the call for an immediate vote infringed on the rights of several people who were intending to speak. Not only that, but some of us had not spoken on the issue at all up to that point. 

Let's review the legitimate use of this motion, which won't take long. 

The motion to call the question is referred to in the books as Call for the Previous Question, an archaism which translates as, "I move that we stop debate immediately and vote on the motion right now." It's a way for a supermajority of a board to deal with truly time-wasting conduct. Suppose your group has been debating a motion that clearly has strong majority support, but a couple of individuals are stalling by raising amendments, one after the other. Each amendment in turn has to be considered and then voted down. Eventually, most of the board and all of the audience realize that there is overwhelming support for the motion and what is transpiring is just a waste of time. 

It is at this point that the motion, "Mr Chairman, I call the question" is appropriate. But there is a complication here. The motion, if passed, would infringe on the rights of the two opposition members to continue to offer amendments. Ordinarily, their right to offer amendments is not limited. For this reason, the motion to call the question requires three things: 1) a second 2) an immediate vote on the motion without further debate and 3) a two-thirds vote of all those present and voting. 

Roberts Rules is pretty solid on protecting the rights of the minority. The requirement for a two-thirds vote is fairly widespread in the rules structure, mainly dealing with moments when the rights of some minority will be limited. 

For some reason, my neighborhood council has to reteach the rules for calling the question every year. Apparently there are other organizations which fail to teach its proper implementation. The misuse of the motion to call the question is to give any one person a veto power over other people speaking. 

Some people like to argue that Roberts Rules is inadequate because it allows one person who knows the rules to lord it over everyone else. I think this argument is completely backwards. As our committee meeting showed, it is the ignorance of the rules that wastes time and allows the ignorant to attempt to control matters inappropriately. The remedy is not to abandon Roberts Rules. The rules provide the level playing field we all like to talk about. The remedy is to teach the rules to your board. 

By the way, I put my time where my mouth is when it comes to Roberts Rules. I will come to your governing board and teach you how to make your meetings shorter and more efficient by the proper use of parliamentary procedure. It takes about 90 minutes.

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

NEWGEOGRAPHY--As its economy started to recover in 2010, progressives began to hail California as a kind of Scandinavia on the Pacific — a place where liberal programs also produce prosperity. The state’s recovery has won plaudits from such respected figures as The American Prospect’s Harold Meyerson and the New York Times’ Paul Krugman.

Gov. Jerry Brown, in Bill Maher’s assessment, “took a broken state and fixed it.” There’s a political lesson being injected here, as well, as blue organs like The New Yorker describe California as doing far better economically than nasty red-state Texas.

But if you take a look at long-term economic trends, or drive around the state with your eyes open, the picture is far less convincing. To be sure, since 2010 California’s job growth has outperformed the national average, propelled largely by the tech-driven Bay Area; its 14% employment expansion over the past six years is just a shade below Texas’. But dial back to 2001, and California’s job growth rate is 12%, less than half that of Texas’ 27%. With roughly 10 million fewer residents, Texas has created almost 2.8 million jobs since the turn of the millennium, compared to 2.0 million in California.

Even in the Bay Area, the picture is less than ideal. Since 2001, total employment in the San Francisco area has grown barely 12% compared to 52% in Austin, 37.8% in Dallas-Ft. Worth, 36.5% in Houston and 31.1% in San Antonio. Los Angeles, by far California’s largest metro area, scratched out pedestrian job growth of 10.3%, slightly above the national increase of 9.3% over that time span.

Remarkably, despite the recent tech boom, California’s employment growth in science, technology, engineering and mathematics-related fields (aka STEM) since 2001 is just 11%, compared to 25% in Texas. Both Austin and San Antonio have increased their STEM employment faster than the Bay Area while Los Angeles, California’s dominant urban region and one-time tech powerhouse, has achieved virtually no growth. This pattern also holds for the largest high-wage sector in the U.S., business and professional services.

Geographic Disparity: Relying On Facebook

“It’s not a California miracle, but really should be called a Silicon Valley miracle,” says Chapman University forecaster Jim Doti. “The rest of the state really isn’t doing well.”

This dependence on one region has its dangers. Silicon Valley has only recently topped its pre-dot-com boom jobs total, confirming the fundamental volatility of the tech sector. And there are clear signs of slowing, with layoffs increasing earlier in the year and more companies looking for space in less expensive, highly regulated areas.

Consolidation and dominance by a few giants like Google, Facebook, Apple threaten to make Silicon Valley less competitive and innovative, as promising start-ups are swallowed at an alarming rate. Even Sergei Brin, a co-founder of Google, recently suggested that start-ups would be better off launching somewhere else.

Housing poses perhaps the most existential threat to the Bay Area, particularly among millennials entering their 30s. Only 13% of San Franciscans could purchase the county’s median home at standard rates and term. For San Mateo, the number is 16%. No surprise that as many as one in three Bay Area residents are now contemplating an exit, according to an opinion poll this past spring.

Outside the Bay Area, where tech is weaker, the situation is much grimmer. In Orange County, the strongest Southern California economy, tech and information employment is lower today than in 2000. In Los Angeles, employment has declined in higher-wage sectors like tech, durable goods manufacturing and construction, to be replaced by lower-wage jobs in hospitality, health and education. A recent analysis by the Los Angeles Economic Development Corp. predicts this trend will continue for the foreseeable future.

Expanding Inequality

Perhaps nothing undermines the narrative of the California “comeback” more than the state’s rising inequality. A recent Pew study found California’s urban areas over-represented among the metro area where the middle class is shrinking most rapidly. California now is home of over 30%  of United States’ welfare recipients, and almost 25% of Californians are in poverty when the cost of living is factored in, the highest rate in the country.

Even in Silicon Valley, the share of the population in the middle class has dropped from 56% of all households to 45.7%, according to a recent report by the California Budget Center. Both the lower and upper income portions grew significantly; today lower-income residents represent 34.8% of the population compared to 19.5% affluent.

Such disparities are, if anything, greater in Los Angeles, where high rents and home prices, coupled with meager income growth, is deepening a potentially disastrous social divide. Renters in the L.A. metro area are paying 48% of their monthly income to keep a roof above their heads, one reason why the Los Angeles area is now the poorest big metro area in the country, according to American Community Survey data. Overall California is home to a remarkable 77 of the country’s 297 most “economically challenged” cities, based on levels of poverty and employment, according to a recent study; altogether these cities have a population of more than 12 million.

One critical sign of failure: As the “boom” has matured, the number of homeless has risen to 115,000, roughly 20% of the national total. They are found not only in infamous encampments such as downtown Los Angeles “skid row” or San Jose’s “the Jungle” but also more traditionally middle class areas as Pacific Palisades and through central parts of Orange County.

The Fiscal Crisis

California’s “comeback” has been bolstered by assertions that the state has returned fiscal health. True, California’s short-term budgetary issues have been somewhat relieved, largely due to soaring capital gains from the tech and high end real estate booms; just 5,745 taxpayers earning $5 million or more generated more than $10 billion of income taxes in 2013, or about 19% of the state’s total, according to state officials.

Most likely this state deficit will balloon once asset inflation deflates. Brown is already forecasting budget deficits as high as $4 billion by the time he leaves office in 2019. The Mercatus Center ranks California 44th out of the 50 states in terms of fiscal condition, 46th in long-run solvency and 47th in terms of cash needed to cover short-run liabilities.

Despite this, the public employee-dominated state government continues to increase spending, with outlays having grown dramatically since the 2011-12 fiscal year, averaging 7.8% per year growth. No surprise that Moody’s ranked California second from the bottom among the states in its preparedness to withstand the next recession. Brown’s own Department of Finance predicts that a recession of “average magnitude” would cut revenues by $55 billion.

The Cost Of The Climate Jihad

Relieved over concerns in the short run budget, the rise in revenues has provided a pretext for Brown to push his campaign to fight climate change to extremes. New legislation backed by the governor would impose more stringent regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, mandating a 40% cut from 1990 levels by 2030.

Brown has no qualms about the economic impact of his policies since he tends to prioritize one sin — greenhouse gas emissions — even above such things as alleviating poverty. Brown’s moves will, by themselves, have no demonstrable impact on climate change given California’s size, temperate climate and loss of industry, as one recent study found. Brown knows this: he’s counting on setting an example that other states and countries will follow. Perhaps less recognized, California’s efforts to reduce emissions may account for naught, since the industry and people who have moved elsewhere have simply taken their carbon footprint elsewhere, usually to places where climate and less stringent regulation allow for greater emissions.

California’s climate policies, however, are succeeding in further damaging the middle and working class. Environmental regulations, particularly a virtual ban on suburban homes, are driving housing prices up; mandates for renewables are doing the same for energy prices. This hits hardest at traditionally higher-paying blue-collar employment in housing, manufacturing, warehousing and even agriculture.

California’s climate agenda has accelerated the state’s continued bifurcation — by region, by race and ethnicity, and even by age. Of course the green non-profit advocacy groups and the media will celebrate California’s comeback as proof that strict regulations and high taxes work. They seem not to recognize that that human societies also need to be sustainable, something that California’s trajectory certainly seems unlikely to accomplish.

(Joel Kotkin is a R.C. Hobbs Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism in Houston. His newest book is “The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us.” This was first posted at newgeography.com.)

-cw

REDISTRICTING POLITICS--Among California’s great strengths is that our local government offices are nonpartisan, unlike many states where partisan politics dominates at the local level. But once in a while aspects of our Progressive Era reforms come under attack; and that is the case with Senate Bill 958 currently on Gov. Brown’s desk. It is a bill he should veto with vigor.

SB 958 sounds like a good idea, it sets up a 14 person commission to redistrict the five-member Los Angeles Board of Supervisors at the next round of redistricting in 2021. The problem is that it would be done by a partisan panel; the commission the bill establishes would have to reflect the partisan make-up of Los Angeles County.

The commission would thus have to be made up of seven Democrats, reflecting the 52 percent Democratic registration in Los Angeles County, three Republicans, reflecting the 19 percent GOP registration and four non-partisan members for the 29 percent non-partisan and others.

But local government interests are not measured in partisan terms. In the 1990s a court case required Los Angeles to draw supervisor districts to unite its Latino neighborhoods, and that district is now represented by Latina Supervisor Hilda Solis. Los Angeles has an historical black district, represented by Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas that acknowledges the long African American role Los Angeles politics – California’s first black legislator was elected from South Central Los Angeles in 1918.

Two of the other districts are basically suburban, and the fifth district is centered in the many communities of West Los Angeles. This formula has worked well, and Los Angeles redistricting has not been a big issue in the past two redistrictings.

So SB 958 is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist, as the Los Angeles Supervisors pointed out to Gov. Brown in their letter asking him for a veto. The bill is also opposed by the Board of Supervisors in Kern and Riverside Counties, the Urban Counties of California, and the California State Association of Counties. Among the reasons for opposition from these local government bodies is that this bill is a camel’s nose under the tent to inject partisan politics into California local government, which thankfully has been free of it.

Partisan politics at the local level has historically been the source of political corruption, from Tammany Hall to the Chicago machine. Many political scientists believe partisan local races are a terrible idea, as the Texas experience shows.

More than a century ago, Texas developed what was called the “White Primary,” a primary election system where only white voters could participate. Texas justified this system by insisting the primary election was “private affair”, just simply nominating candidates of a political party.   In order for that to work, every election in Texas had to be run through a partisan primary.

Although the courts years ago threw out the White Primary as obviously discriminatory, the partisan primary structure has survived to this day. Republicans now totally control the state of Texas so all of its state and local office holders – including all justices to the Texas Supreme Court – must first be nominated in the Republican primary. Since 1994, the general election has been perfunctory; winning the Republican primary has been everything.

Judges and local government officials thus have every reason to fear they might lose the party primary, and this year a Supreme Court justice was opposed in the Republican primary as being “not Christian enough.”

Do we want this kind of a system in California? Of course not. Our politics have stayed cleaner than most states because we keep partisan politics out of local and judicial offices. SB 958 would interject partisan politics where it does not belong, and for no good reason. It should be vetoed.

KISSING THE LA WE LOVE GOOBYE--I have had the pleasure of living in Los Angeles for thirty-five years and have loved it, warts and all. I’ve been a great defender as I’ve travelled the country and world, confronting many others (especially New Yorkers) who have made LA bashing a sport. That is, until they all decided to move here. 

But something huge and ominous has taken hold recently that threatens our very way of life: rampant over-building and over-development. Where are the voices speaking out against this threat and outrage? 

Where is the counter-narrative to the party line coming from Mayor Garcetti and the rest of City Hall that densification is not only inevitable, but desirable? If you are a citizen of this city, do you, or any one you know, favor this onslaught? 

I have yet to talk to ONE Angelino who is happy about the traffic and congestion that has gone from bad to impossible in the last few years. Try going anywhere on the west side, anytime, and not finding complete gridlock. Or the 405. Or 101. Or West Hollywood and Beverly Grove. And don’t even mention the downtown core. 

And now Hollywood is on the brink of obliteration. If you haven’t been paying attention, the amount of building there is beyond the pale – ALL of which required spot zoning changes to allow these massive projects to go ahead, violating basic zoning statutes (statutes there to protect our neighborhoods and quality of life.) 

And that does not even begin to count the eight or so mega-projects on the books for Hollywood, including hideously over-scale projects like the one planned for Crossroads Of The World (near Sunset and Highland) where a developer is in the process of ramming through a billion dollar project of high rises (one well over 30 stories,) massive condo and hotel units, which can only result in permanent gridlock in Hollywood as well. 

Where is the outrage? Where is the voice of the people? Why do we not get a say? 

Why do we allow 15 overpaid City Council members to sell out our great city to greedy developers (for pathetically small campaign contributions at that) and power hungry union bosses? Talk about a good return on investment. When you see the paltry sums contributed, the developers and unions are dropping pennies to reap millions. 

We hear a constant drumbeat of “experts,” many of which have written Opinion pieces in the LA Times, LA Weekly and elsewhere, crow about the benefits of increased density. How is this beneficial and to whom?

We hear that we are all just NIMBYs if we don’t fall in line, and it’s just “wealthy homeowners” who want to stop the splendid progress. No, it is not. It is rank and file Angelenos like you and me who want to preserve some quality of life. 

We are told we must allow developers to drop these monstrosities into any neighborhood, cheat on parking requirements, and get a pass on CEQA safeguards. Again, why? What are the benefits for the four million of us who have lived here happily for years? We are told we must just hand over our city and quality of life and not raise a peep? 

Well, I say no. This is OUR city and it belongs to the people, not for-sale politicians, not greedy developers, not union bosses, and certainly not pointed-headed theorists. The fact is, whether it’s an airplane, Disneyland, or a city, there is a point when it has reached capacity and is FULL. 

And the core areas of Los Angeles are full. Period. 

We should encourage development in many other places but not in the core or what little quality of life we have left will be gone forever and our great city will just be another ghastly mega-tropolis with impossible pollution and traffic. Have you been to Mumbai or Mexico City or Bejing? Enough is enough. 

Get busy and start speaking out, and fast. 

Contact your City Council member and register your outrage. Support the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. Support groups like Fix the City and Coalition to Preserve LA, or start your own. Or kiss the LA we’ve loved for decades goodbye. Forever.

(Michael Wilson is a director and producer who has lived in Los Angeles for thirty-five years.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

CONNECTING CALIFORNIA-Californians may think we have a system of public education. But what we really have is a state system for rationing public education. 

I got a personal taste of this in the spring, when I took my five-year-old son to our local school district offices to determine his educational future. This being California, the determination was made not by a test of his abilities or an assessment of his educational needs. Instead, it was a lottery. A school administrator pulled names out of the hat to determine whether he would get one of 24 coveted spots in our elementary school’s new Mandarin language program. 

The month of September, early in a fresh academic calendar, is the time of year when we hear fine speeches and noble promises about how our state and its school districts are committed to doing the very best for every child. School superintendents and politicians often point to our state constitution’s commitment to universal education, which includes a funding requirement to deliver on that commitment. But when you experience how our schools operate, you learn quickly that such lofty, sweet sentiments and guarantees are so much Fang pi (a Mandarin approximation for cow dung). 

In California, when it comes down to who gets precious educational resources, schools as a matter of policy and law leave much to chance. 

We do this for two reasons: scarcity and avoidance. Educational resources here are scarce—there is simply more demand for schooling than the state’s wobbly budget system can accommodate. And so we’ve come to use lotteries and formulas, so that our officials can avoid the work of deciding who deserves resources, and so that the rest of us Californians can avoid reckoning with our collective failure to support public education. 

Yes, it’s true that K-12 (and community college) education is the top spending item in the state budget, but there is no area in which our school spending—which remains below the national average despite recent increases—meets education needs. 

In California, when it comes down to who gets precious educational resources, schools as a matter of policy and law leave much to chance. 

By all reliable accounts, there aren’t nearly enough good, experienced teachers in our schools. The state offers only 180 days of instruction (when research suggests there should be more than 200 days and more hours of instruction), and only provides half-day kindergarten. And the inadequacy of newer programs and schools offered by some districts in the name of educational choice only underscore the ongoing scarcity. There are simply not enough Advanced Placement classes, career-readiness programs, charters, magnets, or language immersions to meet the demand for high-quality options. 

There’s little hope of trying to do more to meet those needs. California long ago decoupled school funding from educational needs. Our school funding formulas, known collectively as Prop 98, are baked into the state constitution, and are driven by tax revenues, the budget, and income growth, not academic needs. Effectively, Prop 98 guarantees only a portion—you might say a ration—of the state budget to schools. (Tellingly, that money is supplemented by a small amount—usually $1 billion or less than 2 percent of annual education funding—from the state lottery.) 

So in the absence of funds to meet all our students’ needs, we turn to education’s version of lotteries to allot scarce resources. State law (mirroring federal guidance) directs school districts to use a lottery system for charter school admissions once the number of pupils who want to enroll exceeds the number of spaces. Districts with magnet programs do the same. Many of these lotteries have complicated rules and exclusions, often to help kids go to schools in their own neighborhoods, keep siblings together in the same school, or to make sure campuses are diverse. L.A. Unified has a system of points to govern its lottery for magnet school placement so complicated that a cottage industry (check out “Ask a Magnet Yenta”) has sprung up to help parents navigate it. 

Of course, such lotteries are not all that fair. The winners in lotteries are more likely to be the children of parents who have the time and resources to investigate their local educational possibilities, sign their children up for the lotteries and, in some cases, write letters or pursue strategies to help their chances. 

And the lotteries raise a bigger question, now being debated in California’s courts. Does “random” allocation of educational resources really represent justice? 

Earlier this summer, the California Supreme Court showed itself to be divided on the question. A 4-3 majority of justices refused to hear challenges to the state’s systems of hiring and firing public schoolteachers and funding schools. The challengers said that those systems were violating the rights of students, because they didn’t produce enough money and qualified teachers to meet the state constitution’s guarantees of education for all. But the Supreme Court majority, in declining to hear the challenges, endorsed the position that while there might be problems with funding and teachers, these weren’t constitutional problems—because the impact of bad policies was random and arbitrary, and not felt by any particular group of students. 

Mariano-Florentino “Tino” Cuellar, a young associate justice of the Supreme Court, dissented powerfully from that logic. Curtailing access to educational opportunity, the justice argued, doesn’t become justifiable simply because it’s done arbitrarily. 

“Arbitrary selection has at times been considered a means of rendering a governmental decision legitimate,” he wrote. “But where an appreciable burden results—thereby infringing a fundamental right [like the right to an education]—arbitrariness seems a poor foundation on which to buttress the argument that the resulting situation is one that should not substantially concern us.” 

The brilliantly cynical filmmaker Orson Welles once said, “Nobody gets justice. People only get good luck or bad luck.” He wasn’t wrong—our parents, where and when we were born, the people we happen to meet, all influence the direction our lives take, through no fault or deed of our own. 

My own son was lucky. His name was pulled 16th out of the hat, giving him a place he now enjoys in that Mandarin immersion kindergarten. His own luck will transfer to his younger brother, who is automatically eligible to join the program when he reaches kindergarten age. 

But California is not as fortunate in leaning its educational system so heavily on luck. Our schools are supposed to be equalizers, helping counter the lottery of life. Instead, they are emulating it.

(Joe Mathews writes the Connecting California column for Zócalo Public Square … where this column was first posted.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ALPERN AT LARGE--The doctor is IN, folks!  Yes, I very much DO care about your sanity, and about your health.  I care about your mental health, and your financial health (and that of the City and County of LA, as well as that of Sacramento).  So while some of you may scream at this article, "Stick to dermatology, Doc!" I still aim to please, and to help you figure out how to address all the November tax proposals. 

It comes down to these two questions, in terms of whether or not to raise taxes: 

1) Does the tax address a problem or priority we've underfunded? 

2) Will the tax money be spent well? 

I've quoted it before, but it bears repeating that "Alpern's Law of Taxes" (while not really MY law, because it's just common sense) states that taxpayers will only get upset by one thing more than the amount of taxes they're being asked to pay:  the perception of how the taxes will be spent. 

In a nutshell, here is my recommendation: definitely vote YES on LA County Proposition M, maybe vote YES on the LA county parcel tax to fund its parks, and definitely vote NO on everything else. 

This is with the understanding that we've misspent most of our past and present state budgets on pensions, which the LA Times has only now begun to confront, to the point where it's not an issue of whether we love and respect firefighters, police officers, and government workers:  it's just not sustainable when we're spending more on retired workers than current workers. 

It's just not sustainable, and our taxes (city, county and state) are already among the highest in the nation. 

Yes, I am a transportation advocate (so I am biased), but I am also aware of where transportation funding is in our city and county--we're still in need for funding projects and transportation-related infrastructure that should have been built 50-100 years ago.   

Measure M is transparent, funds the long-overdue Subway to the Sea and the north-south Valley to LAX railway.  It also funds a host of countywide freeway and rail projects, and gives both new funding for roads and rail operations and allows for long-overdue maintenance. 

Am I infuriated that the sidewalks and roads aren't included for the amount/portion of Measure M that goes to the City of LA?  Yes, but that is a battle for another day, and one that can be helped by altering what we budget at Downtown and what we DEMAND of developers asking for variants. 

So for now, Measure M is a solid YES...despite the higher taxes, and despite the fact that City and County Planning needs to be brought to bear--voting YES on Measure M is NOT the same as voting yes on overplanning. 

As for our parks, the question must go out--do we spend enough on them?  Are our county parks funds spent well...because we DO need more parks.  Hence my tentative "yes" suggestion, but I'd like to see more info on that. 

But let's make this quick and easy for the other tax propositions:  VOTE NO!!! 

Do we spend well, or spend enough, on K-12 and community colleges?  Yes, we've spent plenty, and the funds are hideously unaccounted for and misspent.  Just vote no--these priorities will be better funded by appropriate accounting and budgeting, not by more money that would be akin to giving a drug addict a new bank account on which that person would inevitably just get high. 

As for water/electricity-related funds, our rates and taxes are already going up.  End of story--no need to throw more money this November. 

Do you really want retirees and professionals to flee the City or County of LA, or even the state, more than the phenomenon already under way?  I doubt it. 

So let's vote "YES" on LA County Measure M, keep an open mind on the county parks measure, and vote "NO" on everything else. 

That wasn't so hard now, was it?

(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

@THEGUSSREPORT-Herb Wesson, the current LA City Council president (and former Speaker of the California State Assembly), forgot the adage always tell the truth because it’s the easiest thing to remember. 

This much we know. Herb Wesson lied repeatedly about where he lived. He voted where he should not have voted, went out of his way to do so, may have illegally run for office where he did not reside, and he did it for personal gain. And many if not most of these lies may have been committed under the penalty of perjury.

We already know that Wesson is inclined to mislead the public about his recently exposed financial and housing problems. In the LA Times’ August 17 follow-up to my August 9 CityWatch article, Wesson (through his media flack) falsely stated that his personal problems date back to the 2007 purchase of his current home, which cost $759,999. As subsequently exposed, Wesson’s problems date back to the 1980s. And that house cost 25% more than he said: $950,000, according to public records, a pointless lie unless it was done to protect a bruised ego.

So on to Wesson’s purposeful lies. 

Wesson had three curious real estate transactions on the same day, November 24, 1993. On that Wednesday, he and his wife Fabian purchased a $425,000 house in Ladera Heights, an unincorporated section of Los Angeles County. The Wessons also defaulted on their then-residence in Culver City which sold that day at a tremendous loss to them. They purchased it in the late 1980s for $153,000, sold it for just $60,000 (a 61% loss) and the buyer walked away with a hefty payday a little more than a year later after selling it for $168,500 (a 180% profit). 

Exactly how the Wessons defaulted on a mortgage on the same day they bought a house that cost 700% more is anyone’s guess and might be revealed on their loan documents. But only the District Attorney or FBI can access those records, and they should. 

What matters just as much is who bought that Culver City house, and Wesson’s ongoing relationship to that address from that date in 1993 all the way to June 14, 2005 when his voter registration changed, because Wesson continued to certify under penalty of perjury that the Culver City house was his legal residence during that entire time. This span encompasses his six years in the California Assembly, including two as its Speaker. If anyone in the state is familiar with the nuances of voting districts, it is the Speaker, and there is zero chance that Wesson did not know he was voting where he did not live, and that doing so is a crime. 

If Wesson were to claim that he sold the Culver City house but remained there as a tenant, it would mean that he lived apart from his wife and young sons for those 11 years, 6 months and 21 days when his voter registration changed on June 14, 2005. 

But if Wesson were to make such a claim, he would be lying again. 

After the Wessons sold their Culver City house, Fabian soon changed her voter registration to the address of their newly purchase home in Ladera Heights. She was registered there, as were two of their sons (their other two sons do not appear to have ever registered to vote in LA County) while her husband remained registered to vote at the house in Culver City. Since both are affidavits, they are signed as follows: “I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the information on this affidavit is true and correct. WARNING: Perjury is punishable by imprisonment in state prison for two, three or four years.” 

The Wesson who committed perjury was not Fabian. It was Herb.

On Wesson’s subsequent voter registration affidavit, signed by him June 2, 2005 (made official on June 14,) in the section where he stated his previous address, Herb Wesson asserted that his previous address was the house they bought in Ladera Heights on that date in 1993….an address at which he never registered to vote. In writing that, Wesson confirmed that he falsely and deliberately continued to vote using the Culver City address that he sold 11½ years earlier. 

Unless you believe that the Speaker of the California Assembly did not know he was voting using an address that was different than that to which his wife was registered, he broke the law each and every election in which he voted. 

Wesson also utilized a post office box in Culver City during his campaign for the Assembly. What the District Attorney and FBI may want to explore is what is the physical address listed on the USPS box card for it because putting false information there would be a big federal problem, as well. 

When I reached out to the Press Office of California Secretary of State Alex Padilla for the definition of residency, they responded quickly with it. But they ceased all communication with me when I subsequently requested copies of Wesson’s Assembly campaign documents and certification on whether Wesson’s Culver City or Ladera Heights addresses were redistricted out of the territory Wesson represented and, in particular, just prior to his Speaker ascendency. (Padilla is part of the LA City Council presidency clique. He served in that capacity from 2001 to 2006, preceding Eric Garcetti who held that position from 2006 to 2012, when Wesson took it over, holding it to this day.)

None of these residency shenanigans come as a surprise. Wesson’s former colleagues, California Assemblyman Roderick Wright, LA City Councilmember Richard Alarcon and his former bosses LA County Supervisor Yvonne Burke and LA City Councilmember Nate Holden all found themselves in varying degrees of hot water and/or legal jeopardy for allegedly living outside of the area each represented.

And this was not the only time Wesson played a curious shell game with his residency. 

In 2005 when LA City Councilmember Martin Ludlow shockingly left that job after only two years into his first term (and soon thereafter became a felon) Wesson needed to quickly establish residency within the City of Los Angeles and its Council District 10. 

And did he ever scramble…. 

To be continued.

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a writer who contributes to CityWatch, Huffington Post and KFI AM-640. He blogs on humane issues at http://ericgarcetti.blogspot.com/ . Follow him on Twitter @TheGussReport. Views he expresses here are not necessarily those of CityWatch.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

PERSPECTIVE-Through the efforts of Valley Village Homeowners Association and Neighborhood Council Valley Village, a homeless encampment along the 170 embankment, adjacent to Valley Village Park, was cleared. 

Since the camp was on Cal Trans property, we asked for and received support from our State Assembly Member. The CHP posted warnings before arranging for the removal of the personal items and trash – there was a considerable amount of the latter. 

I was not around to witness the intervention, but there is every reason to believe it was handled as responsibly as possible. No complaints were filed; no reports of violence or excessive force.

The North Hollywood side of the 170 has a homeless problem of its own, too, especially along Tujunga Avenue, where a dozen or so RVs and vans have become permanent fixtures, and homeless prowl the grounds of the Amelia Earhart Regional Library. 

While I am pleased by the removal of the Valley Village Park camp, I acknowledge society’s failure in dealing with the underlying problem. 

The knee-jerk reaction would be to cast a vote for the city’s proposed $1.2 billion bond measure, the objective of which is to acquire land and construct housing. It is certainly preferable over a parcel tax, but the cost ultimately still flows through our property tax bills. 

But I am not ready to support handing the City Council (or the County Supervisors, for that matter) massive amounts of money when there is no outline or plan to organize, manage and, most importantly, perform timely audits of effectiveness. I would feel a little optimistic if the activities were supervised by financially responsible officials – competent individuals, say someone comparable to City Controller Ron Galperin. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough of Ron to go around. 

Whatever the plan, if it does not recognize the distinct challenges posed by the two major component groups of the homeless population – economic victims and those afflicted by mental illness or substance abuse – it is doomed to fail. The plan must allow for triage: the chances of helping the former group are far greater than the latter. $1.2 billion may sound like a lot, but it is less than $50K for each of the estimated 26,000 homeless. How much housing and services can $50K buy? 

We need to focus, then, on making the maximum impact and accept the fact there will be many who are beyond assistance. I am referring to the persons who require institutionalization. Sadly, our laws prevent involuntary medical intervention. 

Progress has its own issues, too. There is truth to the line from the film Field of Dreams, “Build it and they will come.” Even if we achieve a degree of success, there is a risk: we will create a magnet for new waves of homeless persons from other regions, which would offset, if not overwhelm, our capacity to deal with the problem. 

Triage is the practical approach, then. Help the homeless in manageable increments. Also, a one-size-fits-all style of housing will not work. Everything from dormitories to well-organized, military-type camps must be considered. Experimentation will be required. We should not hand over a billion dollars until officials can provide evidence of success on a limited scale first. 

Lastly, we must not dig ourselves a deeper hole. It is absolute insanity to encourage the destruction of serviceable, affordable housing units, as the city presently does. I was heartened to hear the news that the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative received many more signatures than necessary to qualify for the March 2017 ballot. Without it, our elected officials would be content to create the next generation of homeless in exchange for campaign contributions from developers. 

And you are unlikely to find a homeless politician in this city or any other.

(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.

SEEKING SOLUTIONS-The facts surrounding the fatal police shooting of thirteen-year old Tyre King seem to be changing by the hour. The police version of events -- the officer shot Tyre because the boy was pulling a gun from his waistband -- has recently been challenged by the testimony of a second suspect being apprehended at the time of the death. According to that individual’s account, Tyre and he were ordered to lie on the ground. Tyre made a break for it, at which point one of the officers shot him multiple times.
Whatever version of the facts turn out to be true, the inevitable question will be asked: How can we prevent this from ever happening again? 

We don’t presume to have the answer to that question, but one thing’s clear: Tasers are not the solution. 

It’s an important point, because about two months have passed since Mayor Garcetti signed the massive body cam purchase order from Taser International, which contained an unwanted secret bonus up sell of 4,400 Tasers.  You may remember that just a few weeks ago, there was a huge uproar when Riker’s Island in New York announced a plan to introduce 20 new Tasers into the facility. We just got 4,400, and there hasn’t been a peep. 

So why are Tasers the wrong solution for police shootings? 

Because police shootings almost always happen in situations where the suspect is armed or thought to be armed, and, as any cop will tell you, a Taser is never the appropriate weapon to draw when confronted by a weapon-wielding individual. Like it or not, the only appropriate weapon to draw in such situations is the officer’s gun. Not to say he should fire it unless absolutely necessary, but he should draw it. 

About twenty percent of the time, Tasers don’t work. Why? Because for a Taser to achieve its objective, two small dart-like electrodes must not only hit a moving suspect from up to several yards away, but also puncture the suspect’s skin. If one or both of the electrodes doesn’t get the job done, the Taser is worthless. If the suspect is wearing a thick jacket, the electrodes have little chance of achieving their objective. 

Even if the electrodes meet their mark, other components of the Taser sometimes fail, and for some reason, there are people who inexplicably are not seized up by a Taser shock, particularly people who are psychotic or on drugs. 

Once the Taser has failed, the officer is in trouble because a Taser gives you just one chance. One shot and it’s time to reload, by which time the suspect has had more than enough time to injure or kill the officer and/or nearby civilians. 

In the case of Tyre King (photo left), as well as in the cases of almost all police shootings of late, there was a belief on the part of the shooting officer that the suspect was armed. Once that belief took hold, drawing a Taser would have been inappropriate. So in precisely the circumstances when police shootings occur, Tasers are not even close to being the right weapon to draw. 

None of this is to diminish the need for solutions to police shootings, nor is it a call for more gun-wielding by police officers. It’s just an acknowledgement of the fact that, whatever use a Taser may have (and there aren’t many, in our view,) solving our police shooting crisis is not one of them.

(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.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

DEEGAN ON CALIFORNIA-There’s a romance to the phrase “Pacific Coast Highway” that is for many a burned-into-the-brain vision of wide open, empty bluffs dropping down to the sandy beaches of the California coastline, and the blue Pacific Ocean dotted with surfers. 

Beauty, open spaces and the beach are often-cited attributes of the Golden State’s coastline. But, there is also an ugly side: dismissals, infighting, community uprisings, backroom dealing, and questions about the California Coastal Commission’s integrity. That matters. 

Every now and then, along the pristine coastline of Central and Northern California, there’s a beach community; but for most of the 1100 mile-long coastline, except for 100 miles where development and military bases have eaten up almost all of Southern California’s coastline, the western edge of California, practically 1000 miles of it, remains unspoiled and very coveted by beachgoers and builders alike. 

The majority of the coast is always at risk of being developed, and the watchdog agency to mitigate this is the California Coastal Commission. It matters how strong the commission is if it is to be able to push back against development and the cutting off of beach access to the public. Two big development projects, Sweetwater Mesa in Malibu and Banning Ranch near Newport Beach, show how the Commission is currently operating. One approval (subject to a lawsuit) and one “denial-but resubmit.” Failed state legislation preventing ex parte communications between commissioners and developers has intensified charges of “backroom deals.” The perceived integrity of the commission matters. 

The recent firing of the commission’s executive director may signal a tilt toward development and away from preservation and environmentalism along the coast. That also matters. 

The California Coastal Commission matters. It holds the power to shape the future of one of the state’s great assets: it’s mostly pristine coastline. 

How did we get here? Like many significant developments in California history, it came by way of politics, in this case a voter initiative called Proposition 20, the Coastal Zone Conservation Act, which, in 1972, led to the state legislature enacting the California Coastal Act in 1976. The California Coastal Commission was born out of that Act, with a mission to "protect, conserve, restore, and enhance the environment of the California coastline.” 

Developers wanted to create a private, planned community called Sea Ranch along the Sonoma County coast in northern California that would have included ten miles of coastline being cut off to public access. That sounded alarms. Activists gathered enough signatures to put Prop 20 on the ballot. 

From this beginning, the Coastal Commission has worked, mostly in harmony with environmentalists and developers to find a balance for development along the coast, that is, until very recently when controversy erupted over the firing of longtime staff member and incumbent Executive Director Charles Lester in February 2016. Suspicions were that he was not “developer-friendly” enough. His termination is a wound that has not yet healed: no permanent replacement has been named, and many people suspect the CCC will reboot as a more “developer-friendly” commission now that Lester is out of the way. Who replaces him will set the tone, and that’s what has many preservationists and environmentalists worried. 

No matter what the tilt of the commission, dealing with it can be an exhausting experience, as U2’s guitarist “The Edge” learned over ten years of trying to develop Malibu’s Sweetwater Mesa, located in a bluff high above the Pacific, into a residential housing compound. Dozens of lawyers and lobbyists, reams of required permits and public records, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in studies culminated in over 70 technical reports -- allegedly enough to fill 26 banker's boxes -- from what were called “all manner of experts — geologists, biologists, hydrologists, archaeologists, arborists, structural engineers, transportation engineer,” all to satisfy the needs of a very demanding California Coastal Commission. It’s this type of rigor that some feel will be compromised when the new commission director arrives. 

When the Coastal Commission recently approved the Sweetwater Mesa project, the Sierra Club immediately filed suit to stop it. The opposite result came from deliberations about another big project: Banning Ranch. One stretch of coastline that is beyond redemption or much protection (because development happened before the Coastal Act was passed) is the segment in Southern California running from Los Angeles south to San Diego. With some exceptions, this area is already highly developed. 

One notable exception is called Banning Ranch -- hundreds of acres on the coast near Newport Beach – which is the current cause celebre of anti-development groups. Plans to develop one of the last open spaces along the Southern California coast by erecting housing and a hotel, were turned down by a 9-1 vote of the Coastal Commission on September 7. That may have been more about “process” than “content,” and could resurface soon as a project. The developers can submit revised plans within six months. Opponents are using social media to campaign against it. 

Like the Sea Ranch development in Northern California that kicked off the concept of protecting our coastline through rules and regulations administered by the Coastal Commission, and because it downsized its footprint along the Sonoma coastline, the Banning Ranch project may resurface in a modified form. It’s the “big project” right now. 

The current “big issue” is ex parte communications between commissioners and developers, a practice that State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) has been trying to change. Her bill to ban private meetings between lobbyists and members of the California Coastal Commission was just voted down in the State Assembly, where only one dozen votes fell in her favor. Those that fear that backroom deals are how the Coastal Commission operates cannot be encouraged by the negative vote on the ex parte bill. 

The Surfrider Foundation that says their mission is “dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world's ocean, waves and beaches through a powerful activist network” has posted this warning: “The most pro-development commissioners with the worst environmental voting records are attempting a coup to weaken the Commission’s ability to protect the public’s coast and undermine the integrity of the Coastal Program.” That matters.

(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.

GELAND’S WORLD--We have to thank mayor Garcetti for taking disaster preparedness seriously. He brought Dr Lucy Jones into city government, where she considered our vulnerabilities in the event of a serious earthquake. 

As she pointed out, a major earthquake on the San Andreas fault -- what we colloquially call "the big one" -- would leave us without running water for an extended period of time, because lateral movement would break the water mains. 

We would also be without electricity and without an operating sewer system. Without electricity to recharge the cell phone towers, our mobile phone system would only be viable for a few hours. Driving would be difficult, because downed power lines would block city streets. 

In short, it would be a system-wide failure in which at least momentarily, wherever you happen to be stuck, you're on your own. 

For the past 8 months, the neighborhood council emergency preparedness alliance (NCEPA) has been hearing briefings by representatives of law enforcement and city departments. 

For example, we just heard a talk on how the Department of Recreation and Parks has been preparing to deal with a major disaster. In a city which has over 400 parks, nearly half being equipped with some sort of building, the Rec and Parks system is an obvious tool for dealing with thousands of people who have been driven from their homes by structural damage. 

It was pointed out that people don't feel comfortable remaining in unstable structures following earthquakes. In moments of such human displacement, people tend to congregate in open spaces such as public parks. 

The Department of Recreation and Parks has been thinking about this possibility and has developed plans. It's employees will go to predetermined posts or be assigned emergency jobs. They will cooperate with the American Red Cross in creating shelters. 

I must say that we were impressed by the level of awareness and attention to preparation we heard from the Rec & Parks representatives. In previous meetings, we heard from the LAPD and the LAFD, who will work with the emergency operations center to maintain order and provide critical services. 

There even seems to be a good deal of mutual organizing going on between the various agencies and law enforcement groups. 

So far so good. But one critical element appears to be missing from all the preparations. 

That element is you and me. The planners have left us, the public, largely ignorant of what the plans actually are. Consider the four million inhabitants of the city of Los Angeles along with another six million inhabitants of the rest of the county. 

Do any of us know where we are supposed to assemble in the event that an earthquake makes our homes dangerous and leaves us without running water or electricity? Nobody has told me where I am supposed to go, and I would imagine it's the same for you. 

We had a discussion of these uncomfortable facts at the latest meeting of NCEPA. I should point out that some people raise a counterargument: Making disaster preparedness plans available to the public could play into the hands of potential terrorists. I think this is an understandable point. But it's possible to make a distinction between preparing for an act of terrorism vs. preparing for a major earthquake. 

Preparation for a local terrorist attack is something that should obviously be confined to law enforcement and a few top ranking government officials. The rest of us don't need to know what the LAPD plans are, just as we didn't need to have detailed knowledge about how the LA Airport police were trained to react when terrorists attacked one of the terminals. We don't want to tell terrorists in advance that the members of the public will all be heading in a particular direction to a particular place in the event of public violence. 

But a major earthquake is a very different situation. To make an obvious point, earthquakes are not the sort of events that terrorists can plan for, and they aren't the sorts of events that anyone can fake. If we have a major earthquake, we will all know it. 

So my question to the authorities and to the NCEPA is this: It's ten minutes after the shaking has stopped. What do we do now? What do thousands of displaced people do? Where do they go? Should they shelter in place, meaning that they stay home and live on bottled water, or should they wander towards the local park, hoping that the authorities will be providing food, water, and shelter? 

My view is that the public ought to be told the plan in advance. We should all have knowledge of a nearby open-ground assembly point should our own homes be rendered unstable. And, we should all become part of a wide scale training and organizational program so that if and when we are on our own, we will be able to deal with it. 

To put it another way, we the public should be part of the planning and training process so that in the event of a natural disaster, we will know what to do and have the supplies and tools available to do it. 

Our proposal at NCEPA is that a few hundred community organizations, starting with the 96 neighborhood councils, provide training and organizing to the public so that if the big earthquake happens, our neighborhoods will be capable of reacting on the local level. Everyone will have access to water, shelter, and first aid. 

This means that the NCEPA organization needs to provide the connection between the city agencies and the public. At the public end of this pipeline, the neighborhood councils will play an important role, as will other groups such as homeowners associations and religious groups. 

From now on, the question we need to be asking ourselves is this: If the big one hit us tomorrow morning, would we be ready? Right now, the answer is obviously No. But the city has been making progress. What is left to be done is to bring the disaster preparedness program to the people. 

Addendum: We will be discussing emergency preparedness at the Congress of Neighborhoods, to be held at the Los Angeles City Hall this Saturday, September 24. Join us. If you register in advance, parking is free.

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

-cw

HERE’S WHAT I KNOW--In the years following World War II, Los Angeles was a fast-growing metropolis, an automobile-centric sprawling modern city, attracting new residents seeking a different type of urban living. Architects Heth Wharton and Ralph Vaughn were designing garden apartment complexes in Los Angeles, including Venice’s Lincoln Place, North Hollywood Manor and on thirteen acres of former dairy land in Sherman Oaks, Chase Knolls. Wharton and Vaughn followed the Garden City planning principles, arranging buildings around open courtyards and keeping traffic and storage to the perimeters of the complex. 

So many Angelenos have called Chase Knolls home over the years and in 2000, the complex was designated a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument as part of an effort to prevent its demolition. But now, part of the property is at risk. 

The city has approved a Tenant Habitability Plan (THP) that allows the developer to knock down existing garages 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. 

By the end of the project, residents’ covered parking will be replaced by an uncovered, unassigned open-air parking space. The change will also compromise the tenants’ storage units, half of the laundry rooms on the 13.5 acre property, as well as the trees and wildlife. 

According to a tenant activist, “the developers could move the utility lines over a few feet to save the garages, laundry rooms and trees except they are clearing the area to build six new apartment buildings where the garages and laundry rooms are today. The six buildings will house 141 new units that will not be covered under rent control.” 

On top of that, existing residents will get a 10 percent rent increase, based on the total cost of improvements, which is “basically putting the infrastructure in place for the developer to build,” the activist adds. 

Many of the existing tenants feel the THP was not properly completed and should have been rejected by the Housing + Community Investment Department for numerous reasons, including all three sections regarding hazardous material abatement, listed as N/A, although two sets of tests submitted by the landlord confirmed the presence of both asbestos and lead in the garages and laundry room, slated for demolition, as well as other issues. 

The law mandates disclosure of hazardous materials; leaving out information or lying on the THP form or in testimony is a misdemeanor. Tenant activists have been appealing to Councilmember David Ryu to forward the THP to the City Attorney for investigation. 

This past week, prior to a calendared September 27 meeting, trees have been cut down to make room for the electrical updates, some of which contain nests, also a violation of the prohibition against cutting down mature trees during nesting season, which one of the activists brought before Ryu. The activist notes that trees will be continued to be removed through the end of September and possibly into October, despite the EIR indicating that no more than 65 trees would be removed and the DEIR supplement indicating that “it would make every attempt to relocate mature trees … would replace trees that are removed a part of the revised project with the same species.” 

The activists will continue to battle against the change to the historic property, changes that will compromise the quality of life for existing tenants. We’ll keep you posted.

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

-cw

TRUTHDIG-It should be named “the exploitation highway.” The path begins at the Los Angeles Harbor and extends about 100 miles east to the warehouses that process goods for Wal-Mart, Amazon and other retailers. These products are unloaded from container ships from Asian manufacturing plants, where labor is much cheaper than in the United States. 

Here, far from the noise of the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton brawl, are painful examples of what this presidential campaign should be about—$10-an-hour working people struggling to raise their families out of poverty, straining to send their kids to school, falling through holes in the safety net. 

At the port, truck drivers—classified as “independent contractors”—wait in long lines to pick up loads. Driver Daniel Anseko Vaina (photo above) told me he might get $185 a load to carry a container of Wal-Mart merchandise. From this, he subtracts $35 for fuel, $60 for the transportation company from which he leases his truck and another 5 to 10 percent for insurance, leaving him with less than $50 or $60 a day. 

The trucks carry the containers to warehouses. Most are east of Los Angeles, in the area known as the Inland Empire. There, goods are stacked, often precariously, on pallets, and then sped to sorting tables. 

Warehouse workers told me they receive about $10 an hour for dangerous work that offers no health or retirement benefits. One pallet knocked down Alejandra Lopez, 56. The company sent her to a clinic, which approved sending her back to work, despite extreme pains in her abdomen. She couldn’t make it. An attorney helped her get workers’ compensation, which paid for surgery. She cried as she told me her story. 

I met these workers while pursuing another story. We’d been talking at Truthdig about whether white blue-collar manufacturing workers, left behind in the current economy, would vote for Trump. But Latinos are now the largest single ethnic group in California, especially in the southern part of the state. Manufacturing jobs are declining. The white blue-collar workers I interviewed earlier in my career have diminished in number, along with the auto, aerospace and other manufacturing plants that once employed them. 

Instead of the story I set out to cover, my attention was caught by an article by professor Juan Lara of the University of Southern California: “Warehouse Work: Path to the Middle Class or Road to Economic Insecurity?” 

That was connected with another story of working-class economic insecurity: that of truck drivers, deprived of regular pay, classified as independent contractors—as if they owned a business. Together, they amount to a story: the exploitation of hard-pressed working people, no matter their ethnicity. 

Barb Maynard, a communications consultant for the Teamsters Union, which is trying to organize the drivers, introduced me to Vaina, a truck driver who goes by the nickname Seko. 

We drove around the edges of the Port of Los Angeles, which occupies 7,500 acres of water and land. The adjoining Long Beach Port sprawls across another 7,600 acres. The shipping industry says these two ports account for nearly half of the sea cargo coming into the United States. 

Classifying drivers such as Seko as independent contractors is a good deal for the trucking companies, which he said don’t have to pay salaries or benefits (drivers are paid by the company that receives the shipment upon delivery). Rather, money comes to the trucking companies from the drivers’ lease payments and parking fees for their trucks. The drivers buy fuel and supplies from the company—at the company store, you might say. As Tennessee Ernie Ford sang in “16 Tons,”  “Saint Peter, don’t you call me ‘cause I can’t go. I owe my soul to the company store.” 

The companies say the arrangement gives the drivers the life of independent business people, able to choose their hours and working days. But the drivers’ days don’t allow for much independence. Seko said drivers begin lining up at the port at 3:30 a.m. to get a chance for a load when the gates open two hours later. “I start out at 5 or 5:30,” said Seko, who drives his truck until 3 a.m. 

Drivers circle the docks filled with containers, but there’s no guarantee of a load. “There’s no work,” the dispatcher could say, Seko told me. 

The warehouse workers have a different kind of bad deal. I met them through Sheheryar Kaooji of the Workers Resource Center, which is organizing warehouse workers to pursue rights guaranteed by law, such as safety and wage protections. He arranged for me to meet with five warehouse workers at the center, located in Ontario, Calif., a small city near the warehouses. They spoke Spanish and another resource center worker translated. They earn $10 an hour, the minimum wage. 

“Today, I made enough for my ride to work or to pay the babysitter,” said Marian Garcia, 45. She pays for her daughter’s transportation to college. To earn extra money, Garcia sells clothes and pots and pans bought off the internet. 

Warehouse work is dangerous. “There are so many injuries and accidents, you end up paying [your wages] for medical expenses,” said Rafael Sanchez, 54. “Boxes are stacked high, and there are injuries when boxes fall on top of you. Stacks topple over.” Speed for the quick movement of goods is all-important. “They used to time us,” said Sanchez. “We stopped that. Now they stand in front of you and stare. You will feel the pressure.” 

The workers are up against a business community fixated on recovery from the recession. I talked to Christopher Thornburg, director of the Center for Economic Forecasting and Development at the School of Business Administration at the University of California, Riverside. According to him, take-home pay for workers is understated. “Median earnings in the Inland Empire … is running $42,000 a year,” he said, adding that that’s what warehouse workers receive. But USC professor De Lara noted that that figure includes management and high-skilled jobs. If you count just unskilled, blue-collar workers, the annual pay is $22,000. For women, it’s $19,000. 

Generations ago, there were strong unions—the autoworkers, steelworkers, machinists, longshoremen and others. But an unfriendly judicial and regulatory system has made it almost impossible for unions to organize drivers classified as independent contractors or warehouse workers in scattered facilities, each with a different owner. That should be part of the presidential campaign.

It took courage for the workers to meet with me. The bosses could retaliate by cutting their hours or not giving them work. I asked why they’d agreed. 

One said, “We want our children to have a better life.” Another told me, “The reason we are struggling is not just for our children, but for everyone who works in a warehouse.” 

I was stirred by those words and touched by their stories. They were far different from anything we’ve heard in the presidential campaign.

(Bill Boyarsky is a columnist for Truthdig, the Jewish Journal, and LA Observed. This piece was posted first at Truthdig.com.) Photo: Bill Boyarsky. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-Planning a large city like Los Angeles might be complicated, but it is not rocket science. In fact, the State of California outlines the process in detail through its periodically updated General Plan Guidelines, the latest draft of which is now available on-line. Furthermore, this update contains hundreds of live Internet links to other planning documents and databases. 

Nevertheless, Los Angeles has turned to three alternative principles to guide its multi-layered, opaque city planning process. Yes, City Planning has responded to the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative with its own proposal to update Community Plans, batch General Plan Amendments, vet environmental consultants, and upgrade technology, but this is really old wine in new bottles. 

To better understand this old wine, I have boiled it down to three components: 

Component 1: Private Parcels. Oblivious to California’s General Plan Guidelines, in Los Angeles city planning only refers to the regulation of privately owned parcels, not to the city’s entire landmass, the actual focus of city planning. Since these private parcels range from about 20 to 40 percent of most communities, it means that LA’s day-to-day planning process ignores the 60-80 percent of the city that consists of sidewalks, streets, undergrounded and above ground utilities, parkways, parks, senior centers, libraries, schools, government buildings, power line easements, and open space. Likewise, all of the public services that are necessary to live in a metropolitan area, such as telecommunications, water, electricity, waste disposal, education, public safety, streetlights, stoplights, directional signs, and hundreds of other services, large and small, are slighted by this truncated city planning process. 

In practice, this means that the inflated population forecasts that drive LA’s plans are only applied to the planning and zoning of private parcels. They are not the basis for calls to upgrade local infrastructure, local services, or the City’s annual budget. There is one exception, however. Transit is often mentioned, but strictly because it can be invoked as a rationale for up-zoning and up-planning private parcels that happen to be located near transit corridors and stations. 

Component 2: Real Estate Speculation. Once city planning has been restricted to the regulation of privately owned parcels, the next planning component is to open the floodgates for individual and institutional profit maximization. If an individual or institutional investor believes they can make more profit by a specific real estate project, whether or not is it legal, the City’s planning laws and regulations are conveniently bent to become “business-friendly.” This ad hoc regulation of land explains why most of LA’s city planners, despite masters degrees from well regarded graduate programs at UCLA and USC, devote their working hours to administrative processes that legalize otherwise illegal real estate projects. 

Ingredient 3: Squeaky wheels planning. Since the maximization of profit through investment in private parcels guides the planning process in Los Angeles, it continually leads to two wildly different outcomes, either too little or too much investment. Most poor neighborhoods languish with little private or public investment other than the LAPD, giving rise to a dilapidated built environment, as well as massive civil disturbances in 1965 and 1992. Meanwhile “hot” neighborhoods suffer from uncontrolled real estate speculation. Because so many of their speculative projects are out-of-character, out-of-scale, and exceed the capacity of local public services and public infrastructure, local residents frequently push back. 

In response, occasional projects are killed or withdrawn, some are redesigned, and a few are thrown out by litigation. But, when the projects cannot be pushed through because of sustained local opposition, City Hall’s fall back position is to wall off small geographical areas to placate local residents by adopting protective overlay districts. 

This is what I call squeaky wheel planning, and it has resulted in an elaborate mosaic in Los Angeles of D and Q conditions on individual parcels, Community Plan footnotes, Specific Plans, Community Design Overlay Districts, Historical Preservation Overlay Districts, Transit Neighborhood Plans, Residential Floor Area Districts, Station Neighborhood Area Plans, Pedestrian Oriented Districts, Neighborhood Oriented Districts, Community Plan Implementation Ordinances, Master Planned Development Districts, Interim Control Ordinances, and overlay zones and districts so obscure that few people have ever dealt with them. 

Furthermore, squeaky wheel planning is about to become even more complicated once the new re:codeLA zones are implemented on their own, or through a lengthy cycle of Community Plan Updates and their appended zone and plan designation amendments. As I previously explained, the division of the current R-1 single-family zone into 12 alternatives R-1 zones means that many more areas will be walled off through small overlay zones. A program that was supposed to simplify the mind-boggling complexity of zoning in Los Angeles will actually make it much harder to comprehend and impossible to enforce. 

Paying the Price 

Do Angelinos pay a price for a planning system that focuses on private parcels, bends over backwards to promote real estate speculation, and placates local opposition to excessive projects by oiling squeaky wheels with a vast array of overlay zones and districts? Yes. 

Price 1 is understanding. With so many layers of laws and regulations, only the most highly trained specialists can make sense of what is called planning. 

Price 2 is enforcement. While the City Council and the Planning Department might conjure up the rules and regulations, it is up to another City department, Building and Safety, to enforce these laws. Considering that this department is chronically short-staffed, has lost many experienced plan checkers, and pliantly bends to political pressure by routinely approving speculative projects, it is not up to the task. 

Price 3 is quality of life. Squeaky wheel planning can and does protect small areas, but its real purpose is to allow untrammeled real estate speculation to proceed in the rest of Los Angeles. Those neighborhoods continue to suffer even more from projects that are too large, too tall, that tax local infrastructure and infrastructure, and that impose short and long-term environmental costs. 

Price 4 is climate change. Climate change is the ultimate environmental cost of poorly regulated real estate speculation. These unplanned projects use vast amounts of resources and energy to build and then to operate. As a result, they cumulatively load the atmosphere with destructive Green House Gases, the engine of the climate crisis. Furthermore, despite hoopla that some real estate projects are transit-oriented, they have large parking facilities, cater to the well-off who do not use transit, and rarely monitor the transportation patterns of their residents and customers. 

Clearly, this old wine is not fit to drink, even if it is packaged in new bottles.

(Dick Platkin is a former LA city planner who reports on planning issues for City Watch. He also consults, teaches planning courses, and welcomes comments and corrections at [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

RICHARD’S LA ALMANAC-In writing for the CityWatch Corruption Watch, a lot of focus has been on the harm which the crimogenic nature of the Los Angeles City Hall does to the City. The City Council’s crucial element is its voting trading pact which guarantees that no councilmember will stand in the way of any construction deal no matter how illegal or how harmful to the City. Thus, Los Angeles has become an “open city” where the whims of corrupt politician govern – and destroy – the city. 

We seldom address what has made Los Angeles a great city. Two ingredients have been crucial in our rapid rise the nation’s second city. The first is weather. For the most part, weather is beyond our control. If we include air quality as part of weather, then we have exercised some control over air pollution.   The other factor which favored Los Angeles above over metropolitan areas has been de-centralization. 

Los Angeles began de-centralized. In the beginning, there was nothing but scrub brush and some native inhabitants spread hither and yon. We are unaware of their existence except when as new comers we try to pronounce Cahuenga. [Originally, “cabueg-na” which was changed to Cahuenga by the Spanish who could not pronounce the native word for the pass through the hills. (The Story of Hollywood, by Gregory Paul Williams © 2005 pp4-5)] 

It was a few hundred years before the concept of centralization aka densification became relevant for Los Angeles. 

The Landmark 1915 Study of Traffic Conditions in Los Angeles 

By 1915, Los Angeles had developed a serious problem due to centralization of business within a small area, about 1200 wide between Hill Street and Main Street and from First Street down to Seventh Street. The original densification was partially topographical due to Bunker Hill and the LA River, but it was primarily psychological as people were accustomed to retail being within that area confined area. 

With the advent of motorized vehicles, the concentration of business made for horrible traffic due to the street cars (trolleys) which left only room for one lane of traffic in each direction. In other words, the terrible traffic congestion due to the centralization of business was man-made. Other urban areas in the early 1900's were also topographical, Manhattan was a 2.5 mi vs. 11 mi island.

Decentralization was the Solution 

The 1915 study saw the obvious solution. In a gigantic circular area like Los Angeles, business had to expand outwards from the core downtown area. There was no significant geographic barrier. The City had learned to adequately bridge the river and the unobstructed expansion to the south and residential expansion to the west was clear once one was beyond Bunker Hill. 

As the civic leaders recognized, the topography of Los Angeles’s 5,000 plus square miles made decentralization as important in attracting newcomers as the weather. People came to LA in order to own detached homes on single family lots with yards and fruit trees. 

Relationship of Transportation and De-densification of LA’s Core 

In the brief pre-automobile days of Los Angeles’s growth (late 1800's), the horse drawn and then motorized trolleys allowed people to live farther from LA’s commercial center than in the crowded eastern cities which had been constructed in the 1700's and early 1800's, when fastest means of locomotion was a carriage. Thus, eastern urban homes were narrow, close together, and without yards, e.g., the Brownstones and tenements of NYC and Philadelphia row houses. 

Because Los Angeles grew after motorized transit, there was no demand for crammed residential housing, but rather people could spread out miles away from the core downtown area. Decentralization was as a significant attraction as the weather.     

Soon automobiles became the dominant mode of transportation which facilitated the expansion to more distant single family residential neighborhoods. The individual car was much faster than the trolleys as cars did not make unnecessary stops and the autos had maximum versatility.   

The 1915 Traffic Study Recognized the Great Harm of Densification 

The 1915 Study laid down the main principle that business, retails store, etc. had to expand outwards towards the periphery as there was a mathematical relationship between population density and traffic congestion. In fact, expansion would occur as a matter of course, unless retail, business, and population were artificially restricted to a core area.   Business, retail and industry had to follow the population as the residential areas expanded. The concentration of offices etc. in the Basin would benefit a few wealthy landowners while harming everyone else. (1915 Study p 38) 

The 1922 Los Angeles Traffic Commission Report 

By 1922, however, the city was slow to heed the mathematics and the advice in the 1915 Study. Thus, the Los Angeles Traffic Commission was established, and its heart was the most profound recognition of what was essential to set Los Angeles on the correct path: City officials were ethically forbidden to participate. 

“Public officials are, by the very nature of their office, prohibited from being participants. They must act in a judicial capacity and it is not appropriate for them to take sides for or against public improvements where there are conflicting interests and divided public opinion. City officials by reason of the position they occupy, are ethically prohibited from initiating such measures.” 1922 The Los Angeles Plan, p 3 

As a result of this ethical insight, the City began to follow sensible traffic plans. Trolleys were removed from the surface streets as they were not only a major source impeding traffic but also they were maiming and killing Angelenos. Trolleys run on fixed-rails down the center of the street, forcing riders to embark and disembark in the middle of the street where many riders were struck by autos. 

Los Angeles’s De-densification made it America’s Most Desirable City 

For several decades Los Angeles was allowed to expand outward and we became the nation’s #1 destination city. After WW II, however, the forces of corruptionism, about which civil engineers warned us in 1915 and 1922, took control of the newly formed Community Redevelopment Agency and used tax money to make the most devastating mistake Los Angeles had ever seen, namely Bunker Hill with its concentration of office towers next to downtown. 

Elementary mathematics, which had been done in 1915, showed that the result of Bunker Hill would clog LA traffic congestion. Bunker Hill was designed to make a few men vastly wealthy by retarding the movement of offices etc. towards the periphery.   Instead, a combination of corrupt officials, real developers and construction companies conspired to make the Valleys into bedroom communities while retaining as much office, retail and industry in the Basin. After that disaster, Century City was constructed giving rise the endless nightmares on the 405.

The Death of Decentralization is Killing Los Angeles as a World Class City 

The forces of corruptionism control City Hall today, and they are killing Los Angeles just as surely as if we had entered an Ice Age. 

The new middle class, i.e., Family Millennials, have placed Los Angeles as #60 on the list of places where they wish to live. As predicted in 1915 and 1922, these corrupt policies of concentrating development in the Basin are artificially increasing the cost of housing and making transportation a non-functional. CalTrans has opinion that just the Hollywood Millennium earthquake Towers will make the Hollywood Freeway.

In rejecting the Millennium Towers, Judge Chalfant based his decision on the City’s refusal to acknowledge the unmitigable traffic impacts that Hollywood densification would have traffic congestion. City did not address Caltrans’ "concern(s) that the project impacts may result in unsafe conditions due to additional traffic congestion, unsafe queuing, and difficult maneuvering" for the 101 Freeway, where the Level of Service (sometimes "LOS") is "F". 

F = Failure. The density is so terrible that it has already has an F and the City wants to greatly increase the traffic load. This type of corruptionism and disregard for facts are the major causes for Family Millennials deserting Los Angeles. 

Decentralizing to Cucamonga, Texas, and Beyond 

Angelenos are still decentralizing, except now their destinations are hundreds and thousands of miles to our East. People who want a better life are decentralizing to Cucamonga and Riverside, and then they escape to Texas, The Carolinas, Tennessee, Colorado. Rather than recognize that their corruption has doomed Los Angeles as a viable city in second half of the 21^st Century, corruptionism is cannibalizing what is left. They are borrowing billions of dollars in order to maximize density with knowledge that the City will never have the financial base to repay the billions of dollars which it is borrowing and giving the real estate speculators. 

Assuming that a decentralization plan could be devised, the corruptionism which has seized control of City Hall would never tolerate Los Angeles to deviate from its present densification course until they have drained every last cent from the tax payers. Would that LA could return to the yesteryears of 1915 and 1922 when mathematics and ethics played a role in Los Angeles’ planning.

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

-cw