LOS ANGELES

EASTSIDER-My ears always perk up when I hear CalPERS and private equity mentioned in the same breath. Our story starts a couple of years ago, when these words came to the attention of a financial blog, Naked Capitalism, which noticed that CalPERS representations about the wonderful returns on their private equity fund bets simply made no sense. 

This is important because, like most pension funds, CalPERS wasn’t able to make the 7.5% returns on investment they had adopted in calculating what they needed to keep the Plan afloat and healthy. Private equity investments are important to the Plan since they are key to their strategy of trying to get high yields on their investments. 

And you and I should care about this, ‘cause guess who has to pony up more money if CalPERS guesses wrong? Yup. Members of the plan and taxpayers. 

Anyhow, there was much controversy over CalPERS’ refusal to provide public information about their private equity holdings and the actual returns on them. At the time, I wrote about the blatant misrepresentations by CalPERS staff as they tried to pretend that they were actually making a ton of money from investing in Private Equity deals 

Ultimately, the mess got so bad that respected national figures were all questioning the real returns of private equity partnerships, after all the hidden fees were taken into consideration. Thirteen public officials from all over the United States even wrote a letter to the Securities & Exchange Commission. Finally, the California State Treasurer, John Chiang, weighed in and initiated legislation to curb the abuses. I got so excited that I wrote a piece called “John Chiang Steps Up.”  The Bill is AB 2833, and was actually authored by Assembly person Cooley. 

Silly me. 

Imagine my reaction when a recent LA Times article wrote a very unflattering piece over CalPERS, private equity, and by implication, John Chiang his own self.

Even though the Times article gets a bit mixed up trying to balance things by quoting an alleged law professor from UCLA, whose credentials are suspect, the point is clear: this is the old ‘bait and switch’ kind of legislation that the California Legislature is (in)famous for. 

Which brings me to a point about politics. Here’s how it played out: As Treasurer of the State of California, John Chiang automatically has a seat on the 13-member CalPERS Board. Late last year, he actually intervened in the private equity mess by getting AB 2833 (Cooler) introduced. Since Chaing was busy Treasurer, he sent a representative, Grant Boyken. 

So why would his representative at the CalPERS May Board meeting, basically lie through his teeth to the Board about negotiations between the Treasurer’s Office and the Bill’s author over proposed amendments to AB 2833? 

These amendments, it turns out, gutted the bill once Boyken got the Board to support it “if amended” -- but without specifying what those amendments would be. And they were amendments that Boyken clearly knew about when he made his representations to the CalPERS Board. Heck, one of the Bill’s original drafters and supporters even testified to that effect. Here’s the link to a detailed article detailing how Grant Boyken Duped CalPERS Board.  

Not only did the Treasurer’s Office mislead the CalPERS Board, their representative doubled down with his mealy-mouthed responses to the LA Times questions.   

There is only one logical explanation for all of this intrigue. Last year, John Chiang was simply the State Treasurer. This year, John Chiang is a candidate for Governor of the State of California. Do the math. As his deputy, who, by his own admission, is deeply involved in the negotiations between the Treasurer and the author of AB 2833, there is simply no way that Grant Boyken was unaware of these pending amendments when he misled the CalPERS Board. 

The shame about CalPERS support of AB 2833 is twofold. First, it shows that there is not a lot of due diligence done by either staff or the Board itself on the subject of private equity funds, and that is scary. Remember, as the Orange County Register recently reported, CalPERS annual return on investment for this year is going to be essentially zero (0) percent -- even as the Board is looking for a 7.5% return to make their books balance. 

Secondly, it’s a real disappointment to see the political machinations of a man I viewed as the only “grown up” in the field of candidates for Governor -- John Chiang. Think about it. My reasoning starts with Jerry Brown who has been the only counterbalance to the tax and spend democratic super majority for his entire term of office. Even the Howard Jarvis folks have as much as admitted it. 

So who exactly is going to step up and fill that gap when Brown leaves? Gavin Newsom? Antonio Villaraigosa? Eric Garcetti? Give me a break. Chiang is a very smart and savvy politician who comes out of the financial side of politics and actually knows how to count. What a concept. And nobody that I know of except Chiang has the chops to successfully stand up to the Democrats when Brown terms out. The sudden bait and switch on AB 2833 shows the money power of the private equity crowd and their lobbyists, politicians and camp followers. Yuck! 

By the time you read this article, CalPERS will have had their July meeting, and we will see how their brand new shiny Executive Director, Marcie Frost, and their seemingly inept investment staff, as well at the problematic Board of Directors, handle this problem. Or if they do at all.

(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.

HERE’S WHAT I KNOW--Affordable housing is a big issue in LA. November’s jam-packed ballot will include an affordable housing measure, Build Better LA, backed by labor unions and community groups. If passed, the measure would place affordable housing requirements on developers who seek approval for projects larger than city rules allow. 

The measure is opposed by business groups like the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce who believe the proposal would impede needed development, increasing construction costs, especially vis a vis requirements that would favor union labor. 

A surprising new group is rallying against the measure, tenant activists. The LA Tenants Union argues that the restrictions placed by Build Better LA would encourage construction of luxury housing instead of affordable apartments. Should the measure pass, activists fear renters would face eviction from buildings that would be demolished to pave the way for new construction. 

Per an analysis by City Atty. Mike Feuer, some developments seeking zoning changes or amendments to the city general plan could either build affordable housing or pay a fee to bypass the requirement. 

Certain projects would be required to follow wage and hiring guidelines and the city would be limited in its ability to restrict general plan amendments. The general plan is a blueprint to ensure development meets certain guidelines for affordable housing, access to public transportation, and labor. 

If existing affordable housing is razed to make room for costly developments, tenants would not have a guaranteed right to return, according to the Tenants Union, a right that only exists now under certain circumstances. Several renters groups support the measure. 

A second measure, which bakers hope to get on the March ballot, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, would limit spot zoning to bypass planning rules for individual development projects. 

As developers continue the race to build luxury and mixed use projects to gentrify neighborhoods, the affordable housing crisis will not be abated. We need affordable housing close to public transportation and employment for our city to survive and thrive. 

Forcing Angelenos further from centers of employment isn’t prudent for the economics of the city or for the environment. We need limits to development to serve both Angelenos and the business community, which also benefits from workers who can live closer to jobs. We need to ensure city office holders adhere to the city’s general plan instead of making decisions to favor the deep pockets of developers who will choose to pay a “fee” to bypass affordable housing requirements.

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

-cw

GUEST WORDS--When looking at the City of Los Angeles’ proposed $1.2 billion bond for homeless housing, residents should look past the obvious question of whether this will really get the 27,000 people living on our sidewalks into housing. Instead they should focus on more fundamental questions: 

Is this the City’s responsibility? 

Is a new tax really needed? 

Will the tax burden be spread fairly? 

Is an adequate process in place to avoid mismanagement and corruption? 

The answer to all four questions is: No. 

Counties* in California - not cities - are the government entities responsible for taking care of mentally incompetent, poor, indigent and incapacitated persons. Yet the County of Los Angeles only provides $221 per month in general relief (which jumps to a grant of $877 from Social Security if a person is totally disabled). As an old saying goes, the only problem with poor people is that they don’t have any money. If the County had regularly indexed the $221 figure to account for decades of inflation, a significant number of the homeless would be able to afford to live in shared apartments and houses. 

In the face of the County shirking its duty, the goodhearted folks at City Hall have volunteered to help – as long as someone else pays for it. 

Before residents let the City Hall again put its hand into their pocket they might consider that the City Administrative Officer projects that the budget will grow from $5.55 billion to $6.20 billion in just the next four years, about $650 million in new revenues each year by 2020. If the City simply committed 10% of the budget increase over the next twenty years it could easily pay off the $63 million needed each year to service the bond without a tax increase. 

If it is adopted in November, the bond’s tax burden will fall unevenly, with most of the cost being covered by those who have more recently purchased property, whether houses and condos, apartments, or commercial and industrial buildings. This is due to the operation of Proposition 13 which reassesses properties to market value upon sale (or new construction). Renters – including those who are quite wealthy - will pay nothing, and those who have owned their property since 1978, when Proposition 13 passed, will pay very little. 

While City officials say the average yearly increase would be $44.31 per year for a home assessed at $327,900, the current median in Los Angeles, the tax on the Westside and elsewhere with more expensive real estate will be far higher. 

My duplex, purchased in 1989, is assessed at about $800,000. So, I would pay an average over the expected 28 year life of the bond of about $106 a year (on top of the $1,470 I already pay each year to retire school and community college construction bonds.) However, a new buyer of my property, at about a $3.5 million sales price, would pay an average of $473 per year, with a spike in the 11^th year to about $800 when all the bonds will have been sold. 

These effects play out much differently between apartments and commercial property. The City’s rent control ordinance does not allow apartment owners to pass on property tax increases to renters, so apartment owners will have to absorb all the increase. But commercial property is frequently under a triple net lease, which requires the lessee to pay the property taxes, so lots of mom-and-pop businesses will have to pick up the bill. 

With more than a billion dollars at play, the potential is high for mismanagement, favoritism and corruption. However, the oversight committee designed by the City Council has the foxes guarding the hen house. Four are appointed by the Mayor, three by the City Council and there are no qualifications required - such as 10 years or more of multi-million dollar construction management experience or being a certified public accountant. There also is no funding for the committee to hire independent staff or retain experts. Nothing in the bond ordinance prevents the appointment of political cronies or individuals from the affordable housing industry who have a financial interest in which projects are funded.

This all suggests the County, with funding from Sacramento, should finally step up and assume its legal requirement to take care of the homeless. If the City still feels it wants to help, it can fund a housing bond from future revenues. Even without a new tax, strengthening the independence and qualifications of the oversight committee would be prudent. 

*WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION 17000

 Every county and every city and county (i.e.; San Francisco) shall relieve and support all incompetent, poor, indigent persons, and those incapacitated by age, disease, or accident, lawfully resident therein, when such persons are not supported and relieved by their relatives or friends, by their own means, or by state hospitals or other state or private institutions. 

(Mark Ryavec is the former Chief Deputy Assessor for Los Angeles County and now serves as president of the non-profit Venice Stakeholders Association.)

-cw

GELFAND’S WORLD--Think of it as a much bigger, real-life version of the movie Jaws. The town sheriff and the nerdy biologist want to warn the people about the menace, but the town fathers don't want to hurt business. 

"Maybe it's not that bad." 

"But it's a hungry, predatory beast that has already killed!" 

"Well, maybe it will go away." 

For those of a scientific frame of mind, global warming is the beast. It's the worst risk we face. Until giant bug-eyed monsters from outer space or land sharks invade us, or until we get into a nuclear war, global warming is our supreme risk. Nothing else comes close in terms of the worldwide catastrophic effects likely to occur. That's not only to us humans, but also to pretty much every other life form on the planet. 

What's the tie-in to the presidential conventions we will be having? In a word, global warming is potentially still at the stage where we humans can have some effect on the eventual outcome. At least I hope we are still at that stage. But we need to make a mutual decision as a species that we will do our best to prevent the worst. And that's where the politics of this democracy come in. Choices have to be made, and unfortunately, the choice-making process has been perverted. 

The choice: To decrease the slope of our descent into a dramatically worsened world, we have to make changes, beginning with our profligate spending of fossil fuels. At some point, we will also have to come to grips with our own population explosion, the root of our other problems. At another point we may choose to deal with ancillary problems such as the number of cattle we raise. These are, every one of them, difficult problems and each linked to solutions that will be painful to somebody. 

These next two weeks, we will observe the beginnings of the decision-making process. This week, the Republicans will engage in the first of two propaganda celebrations. Then the Democrats get to do their own rites. Should any of the speakers at either convention bring up the issue of global warming, we can expect diametrically opposed positions. It's as if the orbit of the earth around the sun were still in question, the way the two parties differ on this fundamental question. 

For some reason, the leaders of the Republican Party have bought into the mythology that global warming doesn't exist, or if it does exist then it is the result of natural changes, or that if it does exist and humans are partly to blame, then it's too late and too expensive to do anything about it. It's not unlike those arguments about gun control in which the pro-gun side wants to talk about anything but the guns themselves. In the case of global warming, the climate change denialists will talk about the inherent fallibility of scientific data, or raise accusations about the motives of climate scientists, or look desperately for (and even find) a couple of scientists who remain skeptical. But the overall weight of the evidence and the conclusion it implies aren't popular topics in Republican debate. 

The problem for climate change denialists is that the scientific data are getting to be pretty close to overwhelming. There is no disputing the fact that atmospheric carbon dioxide has been going up steadily, and there is no disputing the fact that carbon dioxide has an absorbance and emission spectrum that helps our atmosphere to retain heat. That's why we use terms like greenhouse effect. The only remaining part of the argument is whether the plants and animals of planet earth will be incredibly lucky, at least for a while. 

At the moment, the official Republican line is that global warming is a hoax. Donald Trump has been going around reciting that position, for example in an interview with the editorial board of the Washington Post.  "I'm not a big believer in man-made climate change." 

Notice the choice of words: believer 

This should be a clue to the overall thought process that goes into such statements. The validity of a physical change affecting the entire surface of planet Earth is treated as if you can decide Yes or No based on your personal political obsessions. The tens of thousands of measurements made by orbiting spacecraft, the historical record found in tree rings and glacial cores, none of these matter if you can force yourself to remain in a strong enough state of denial. It's see no science, hear no science, speak no science. 

The Republicans have so far managed to treat global warming not so much as a scientific controversy, but as a political game that it is possible to win. 

The week after next, the Democrats will be holding their own convention. The question for mankind isn't whether the convention treats Bernie Sanders kindly, but whether the Democrats will be serious enough about global warming to even mention it. And if they mention it, will they make a serious case for doing serious things? 

The Clinton campaign treats global warming as a serious threat. My concern is Clinton's need to marry the concept of global warming to some oh-so standard political cliche mongering. Making America the world's clean energy superpower and meeting the climate challenge. Hear me out, Hillary: It's the crashing of major ecosystems, the extinction of tens of thousands of species, and a future of misery for much of the world's human population if we don't get going. It's not like adjusting the dollar exchange rate to improve our import/export ration by a couple of percent, or moving farm price supports up a few percent to save Illinois farmers from losing money on next year's crop. 

But the Democratic Party's argument is phrased in terms of creating jobs, not saving the world. 

I can understand the idea of sugar coating the medicine a bit, as long as we can agree that at some point, we may have to agree that humans need to make some sacrifices in order to save the world. But right now, the Clinton website is basically about the sugar coating, and not much about either the medicine or the problem it is supposed to treat. 

Still, the conversion of the American economy to solar power is a useful thing, and potentially decisive in stemming global warming if the rest of the world does the same thing. 

By the way, we (and the rest of the world) will probably be better off if Republican convention speakers avoid the topic of global warming. The reasoning behind this statement may seem strained, but the logic works: Right now, Republicans with a bit of intelligence and education have to know that they are on the wrong side of science on the question. They've been gradually shifting their position from "there is no global warming" to the slightly softened "it's getting warm, but we can still drive our cars." They're not quite ready to move even further, to "This is a major emergency, albeit a slowly forming one, and we have to do what it takes, even if it costs." 

That would be a decisive statement. It's too bad that the Republicans aren't decisive on global warming the way they pretend to be decisive on middle east wars. But they just aren't there yet. So it's better if they say nothing, because in saying nothing, there is less distance they have to back-peddle when the time comes. 

Notice that the Democratic Party position isn't a decisive statement that we need to save the world, whatever the price. It's more like a promise that the next economic stimulus package will include solar installations, and not just new highways and bridges.

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

-cw

DEATH PENALTY POLITICS--When Mike Ramos, the current district attorney for San Bernardino County (and candidate for California Attorney General), pleaded for Californians to send him one million dollars at the end of April -- so he could afford "paid petition gatherers" to collect enough signatures to qualify "the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016" for placement on the November 8 ballot -- he asserted, "the threat, and application, of a working death penalty law in California is law enforcement's strongest tool to keep our communities safe." 

Other than the proverbial bridge in Brooklyn, no bigger, more bald-faced balderdash has heretofore been sold to Californian voters.  

Eviscerating the myth that the death penalty acts as a valuable deterrent, the Washington Post’s Max Ehrenfreund soberly observed in 2014, that "there's still no evidence that executions deter criminals."  Delving into scientific studies done on the subject for Newsweek, including a 2012 study by the National Academy of Sciences (comprised of our nation's brightest scientific minds), Stanford Law Professor John Donohue’s assessment of the death penalty's deterrent value at the end of last summer was even bleaker. In a column called, “Does the death penalty deter killers?,”  Donohue resoundingly concluded: "There is not the slightest credible statistical evidence that capital punishment reduces the rate of homicide."  

Instead of continuing such a deeply flawed policy, Donohue wrote: “A better way to address the problem of homicide is to take the resources that would otherwise be wasted in operating a death penalty regime and use them on strategies that are known to reduce crime, such as hiring and properly training police officers and solving crime.” (Formerly a professor at Yale and Northwestern Law School, Donohue is one of the leading empirical researchers in legal academia.) 

The shibboleth that the death penalty acts as a deterrent is just one of many reasons why “Proposition 66, ‘The Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016,’ is Fool’s Gold for Californians.”   

Savvy, streetwise, sophisticated Californians have a superlatively better, more effective alternative to vote for, called Proposition 62, "The Justice That Works Act of 2016."  Proposition 62 would (1) replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole; (2) require death row inmates to work and pay wages to their victims' families; and (3) save taxpayers a projected $150 million dollars a year. 

Apart from finally ending California’s ignominious and failed experiment with capital punishment -- making us a standard-bearer for other states where already, “practically speaking, the death penalty is disappearing”  – do you know what’s best about Proposition 62? 

Unlike Proposition 66, the prospective benefits of Proposition 62 are not illusory, based on a bunch of baloney, glorified ballyhoo, or like death penalty proponents’ deterrence argument – bunk.

(Stephen A. Cooper is a former D.C. public defender who worked as an assistant federal public defender in Alabama between 2012 and 2015. He has contributed to numerous magazines and newspapers in the United States and overseas. He writes full-time and lives in Woodland Hills, California.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

VOX POP … VOICE OF THE PEOPLE--With a slick website and considerable political clout, Paramount Pictures has been pushing a $700-million plan to modernize its campus at 5555 Melrose Avenue, deemed the “Hollywood Project.” Larchmont residents, though, are justifiably concerned that the massive redo will overwhelm their community. On Thursday, July 14, the city’s planning commission will consider recommended approvals for the project.

In addition to worsening the already traffic-clogged streets around Paramount Pictures, many residents are alarmed by Paramount’s plan to construct a 15-story building along Melrose Avenue and install super-graphic signs touting the studio’s latest blockbusters. The building would tower over the nearby, low-slung, residential neighborhood.

For the project, Paramount Pictures executives seek approvals from the City Council and mayor that include a General Plan amendment and zone change.

In numerous letters to the city’s planning department, residents constantly noted that the 15-story building would destroy neighborhood character.

“A 15-story office building in our neighborhood blocking our view of the hills? Really? Are they nuts? This is not downtown Los Angeles,” wrote resident Teresa August.

She added, “I’m trying to think of a positive here, but am coming up short. It seems all good for Paramount, but all bad for us.”

Resident Kate Corsmeier wrote, “The Paramount lot is beautiful and historically significant, [but] a 15-story building does not blend with the existing buildings, will block views and add to the feeling of an impersonal commercial district rather than a cohesive commercial and residential area.”

Resident Susan Leibowitz noted, “It’s great that Paramount is infusing money [into] the neighborhood. But the building at Gower and Melrose is too tall for our neighborhood. There’s nothing that tall around here. They need to scale it back.”

And Larchmont Village Neighborhood Association president Charles D’Atri wrote:

I have grave concerns about a number of elements contained in the proposal plan… Several of the proposed features, including the 15- and 8-story towers, super signage and proposed new electronic sign district, are inappropriate and completely represent a break with the historical approach to development on this property. Massive 15-story office towers and lively bright electronic signage might be appropriate in a number of areas, however they do not have a place abutting a quiet, residential neighborhood.

Larchmont activists are expected to show up in force at the planning commission hearing at City Hall in room 350 at 8:30 a.m. on July 14, hoping L.A. officials will actively address their concerns. 

Rendering of massive Paramount Pictures’ “Hollywood Project”

But Paramount Pictures executives and employees have long been major campaign contributors to L.A. politicians. Since 2000, according to the city’s Ethics Commission, they have given at least $95,400 to local pols. At City Hall, that’s a sizable sum that doesn’t go unnoticed.

In addition, since 2003, Paramount has spent at least $238,187 on City Hall lobbyists, who then curry favor with City Council members and the mayor.

That’s how things work within LA City Hall’s broken planning and land-use system. Pay huge sums in campaign contributions and lobbying fees, and win big favors in return. 

Enough is enough. We need to reform LA’s broken planning and land-use system, which is what the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative will do. 

(Patrick Range McDonald writes for the Coalition to Preserve LA.)

-cw

CITYWATCH ACTION POLL--“I think we should be working toward free tuition. That may sound pretty radical, but that was in the original intention of the CSU system, so lower-income students could afford education without having to break the bank with their family, or not even being able to go because they can’t afford it.” ” Cal Poly SLO student Erica Hudson as quoted in the San Luis Obispo Tribune.

Make it free! Make it free!

Fearless prediction. The next big fight in California budgeting is coming, and it will be about a student movement to make public universities free. And it could scramble politics and budgeting in the state.

[sexypolling id="9"]

The San Luis Obispo Tribune offered a detailed story recently about Students for Quality Education, which has chapters at 19 of the 23 CSU campuses, and is ramping up for a big push this fall. They are going to challenge the CSU’s plans for annual increases in tuition tied to inflation – a model that resembles the approach favored by the legislature (and with some departures, by UC).

And they have a great argument. Subsidies to higher education more than pay for themselves; they were the foundation of California’s 20^th century success. And tuition and fees have more doubled in the past decade, leaving many students in debt. The state, even in good times, is more interested in throwing money in a complicated rainy day fund than in investing in public higher education. And there are a lot of young Bernie Sanders supporters who need something to do.

Free tuition is it.

And there are many ways the students, and their sympathizers, could draw blood. One target would be Prop 55: the partial extension of Prop 30. They should point out that the measure doesn’t retain a sales tax increase, and is likely to produce less money than the stopgap Prop 30. The question: why doesn’t the state make tax changes that bring in more billions that go to higher education?

The students would also be wise to draft and start circulating a ballot initiative for 2018. It should be simple: bar UC and CSU from charging any fees or tuition to Californians, perhaps with the caveat that fees can be charged to students from families who make $250,000 or more.

That would precipitate a crisis in Sacramento. How to pay for it? How to budget for it? But that would be healthy. Gov. Brown and Sacramento have dodged fundamental questions about the budget and taxation, instead limiting spending and riding the wave of economic growth. The budget system is still dysfunctional, as will become apparent in the next recession. Or when university students demand what ought to be their birthright.

(Joe Mathews writes the Connecting California column for Zócalo Public Square. This was originally posted at Fox and Hounds.) 

-cw

THE GUSS REPORT-Hugo Rossitter, a veteran Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney, is not to be trusted … or so it would seem if you listen to … Hugo Rossitter. Or, consider his dubious documents and websites. 

A simple inquiry about inconsistencies on a recent affidavit he filed led to bizarre denials from him about two businesses listed on his Linked-In profile – businesses he claims are not and never have been active despite extensive evidence to the contrary. 

The subjects are tied together because, as the phrase goes, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, or, if a witness is lying about one thing, he may be lying about everything. 

A few weeks before the 4^th of July holiday, I called Rossitter at his City Hall office to ask about the affidavit he wrote to obtain a temporary restraining order (TRO) on behalf of Herb Wesson, Los Angeles City Council president, against Wayne Spindler, an Encino immigration attorney, who wrote and drew reprehensible and racist content on a speaker card that he submitted to Wesson. 

After validating the affidavit’s authenticity, Rossitter could not explain why he signed it under penalty of perjury on April 27, fifteen days prior to the actual Wesson/Spindler incident on May 11. He similarly lacked explanation on why the Petitioner on related forms is listed as the Office of the City Attorney rather than the City of Los Angeles, since it is a workplace violence matter and Wesson works for the city. (The subsequent use of the boilerplate form, according to another City Attorney staffer, a case where Councilmember Paul Krekorian pro se sought a restraining order against Lee James Jamieson, the Petitioner is correctly listed as the City of Los Angeles). 

Rossitter could also not explain why his document said injunction, which is usually Civil Court, as opposed to TRO, which is usually Family Court, or what injunctive relief he sought, though both are technically injunctions. 

The next questions caused Rossitter to stop speaking altogether. 

Why were Spindler’s criminal and TRO hearings scheduled to take place at the same time in different courthouses? And, given the totality of these inconsistencies, was he engaged in a premeditated SLAPP action against Spindler? 

SLAPP is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, a meritless legal entanglement that powerful entities such as governments use to suppress critics by overwhelming their time, freedom and financial resources. 

Instead of denying it, Rossitter referred me to Rob Wilcox, Director of Community Engagement and Outreach for City Attorney Mike Feuer. Wilcox said the date was due to Rossitter’s “sloppy” work.   He could not explain why the Petitioner was listed incorrectly. And he denied that the city ever engages in SLAPPs. 

But Wilcox too stopped talking when told of a 2006 Appeals court ruling against Rossitter and his boss Vivienne Swanigan, both working for then-LA City Attorney Rocky “Crash” Delgadillo, in favor of animal activist group Animal Defense League’s anti-SLAPP motion. More on Swanigan further down. 

Rossitter’s background is curious. Admitted to the California Bar in 1978, he went on inactive status from 1980 to 1995. After a stint with local television station KCAL-9, he joined the City Attorney’s office in 2002, primarily handling workplace violence issues. 

New job notwithstanding, at the same time, Rossitter got a real estate broker’s license and started two legal consulting businesses (See complete screenshots of WVPrevent and Southland Mediation) whose websites have the same mailing address and phone number, which I called twice on the 4^th of July. Rossitter answered both with a business-like, “This is Hugo, how can I help you?” 

I asked Rossitter why his businesses, which are on his Linked-In page, are not listed with the California Secretary of State, City of Beverly Hills or City of Los Angeles Department of Finance. 

“They are not active,” he responded. When asked when they became inactive, he said, “They have never been active.” 

In other words, Rossitter would have you believe that two businesses listed on his Linked-In page as active since 2002 and 2003, with functioning multi-page websites, active fax and phone numbers (that he personally answers), email, street and mailing addresses, biographies and photos of him – and only of him – with claims of successes achieved for clients, his fees for those services ($395 per hour with a four-hour minimum), and what it costs to reschedule ($400 for a full day or $200 for a half day) is all just for show.   

“I just have those websites in case I want to run businesses like them someday,” he implausibly offered after a long pause.   

Told about abundant proof that those businesses are, indeed, functioning, Rossitter replied colorfully when asked whether he pays taxes on revenue from those businesses, takes a home office tax deduction, if he asked for and got permission from the city to have outside earned income, and if he submitted a required Statement of Economic Interest. He again stopped talking when asked whether, if moonlighting as a private attorney, he maintains a client trust account. 

Rossitter’s disclosure documents – some approved by Swanigan – provided to me by the Ethics Commission and begrudgingly by a Feuer deputy show dates crossed out and massive gaps, particularly for his WV Prevent enterprise. Their income level claims are inconsistent with success claims on his websites. And his web pages promise “real time” responses that conflict with city policy on using city time and assets for outside employment.   

And this is why it matters. Rossitter gets a prosecutor’s unspoken benefit of the doubt in court because most judges are former prosecutors. His credibility impacts the freedom, safety and finances of everyone involved in his cases. His dubious work on TROs, history of proven SLAPP activity and denials that neither business was ever functioning are red flags requiring investigation by LA District Attorney Jackie Lacey’s Public Integrity Division and the California Bar Association. 

If it is determined the city violated Spindler’s rights (who has filed a $775,000 claim against the city) and caused him economic harm, the taxpayers may end up paying the piper. It would not be the first time the taxpayers did that for outspoken, sometimes boorish, gadflies, either. Rossitter’s credibility will come into question. 

A closing thought on that TRO: Wesson’s colleague, LA City Councilmember Curren Price, who is African-American, said Spindler should be made an example of. But days later, Price approached Spindler outside of a committee meeting, shook his hand chuckling “PDQ. That is a good one. You got me.” Is that why criminal charges have not been filed, and might not ever be, against Spindler? And what, if anything, did Rossitter have to do with it?

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a contributor to CityWatchLA, KFI AM-640, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Daily News, Los Angeles Business Journal, Los Angeles Magazine and others. He blogs on humane issues at http://ericgarcetti.blogspot.com/. The opinions expressed by Daniel Guss are his own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

RATEPAYERS BEWARE-DWP Charter Reform will be on the November 8^th ballot. Voters will do themselves a favor by viewing this initiative with a healthy dose of skepticism. As Shakespeare reminds us, “a rose by any other name….” Just so happens that in this case, the same can be said of reform. 

Some folks will be encouraged by the word “Reform” and operate under the correct notion that something needs to change at DWP. What they may not realize is that “something” is Brian D’Arcy’s power and that the proposed “reform” likely originated with D’Arcy himself. As documented by the LA Weekly, D’Arcy’s union Local 18 has made contributions to Councilman Fuentes’ campaign. Fuentes then introduced the D’Arcy measure under the rubric of reform. (The current rumor is that the reason Fuentes is not running for another City Council term is that D’Arcy has promised him a job). (Photo above: Brian D’Arcy.) 

At this point, some may ask, “What does the DWP boss get from this?” That’s a good question; and here is the answer: The D’Arcy measure allows for Civil Service standards to be bypassed pursuant to a legally binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This means that a DWP union’s MOU, not the Civil Service standards developed over the last 130 years, will determine how DWP employees are hired and fired. This will provide D’Arcy an embarrassment of riches with regard to political power (and the exact opposite of what needs to be done to reform DWP). 

D’Arcy will be able to hand out $200K plus/year jobs (just as he does at JSI/JTI today) as political patronage, and get DWP employees fired that dare challenge him. This type of behavior is a rollback to the 19^th century practice of patronage that inspired the creation of Civil Service in 1883 via the Pendleton Act. According to Tony Wilkinson, Chair of the Neighborhood Council DWP MOU Oversight Committee, in a CityWatch article on July 11, 2016, this will make DWP “totally dependent on labor negotiations with its dominant union (Brian D’Arcy’s Local 18) for a solution to its hiring crisis.” 

What voters need to know is that real DWP reform starts with curtailing, not enhancing, D’Arcy’s power. A real reform measure would limit the percentage of DWP employees that can belong to any one DWP union, abolish the JSI/JTI slush funds, and ensure that DWP employees that challenge D’Arcy (or any union boss) are protected from retribution. The D’Arcy Charter Reform is not reform, it is a union boss power grab. 

The forces supporting this initiative have constructed a Trojan Horse decked out in the livery of reform. Their intent is simple: mine DWP for resources to further their political aspirations. Able to bypass Civil Service, DWP jobs will be handed out as political patronage. Local 18 cash, funded by high salaries fueled by greased rate hikes, will flow into the campaigns of politicians willing to do D’Arcy’s will. What these supporters want is a 21^st Century Tammany Hall, financed by DWP cash, with D’Arcy in the role of Boss Tweed. 

Those sitting on the fence may ask, “Is there anything good in D’Arcy’s DWP Charter Reform initiative?” Well, according to Tony Wilkinson’s July 11, 2016 CityWatch article, this initiative does not free DWP from the political meddling of elected officials and does not include the exemptions needed to resolve DWP’s hiring crisis. Wilkinson’s criticism does not stop there. He further states in his article that: 

“Inserting into the Charter a requirement that DWP implement monthly billing by January 1, 2020, raises the specter of a three-year (2017, 2018, 2019) forced march to a major billing system software change that can’t be halted if it is not ready. Did we learn anything from the last billing system fiasco?” 

Now, why does D’Arcy’s DWP Charter Reform initiative call for monthly billing (as oppose to the current bi-monthly)? The answer is simple: rate hikes will be less apparent to DWP customers, and rate hikes are required to fund Boss D’Arcy’s 21^st Century Tammany Hall. 

In summary, D’Arcy’s DWP Charter Reform is not reform. It is a vehicle for cronyism, corruption, and rate hikes. And those supporting it need to re-visit this issue in-depth. “A rose by any other name…”

(Los Angeles native Schuyler Colfax is an independent writer and former military officer residing in the beautiful San Fernando Valley. He can be reached at [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW--If you’ve ever taken Las Virgenes Road to the beach, you’ve probably noticed the golden hills of the California landscape. Over the years, development has added apartment and condo communities, and a gated community. More recently, you may have noticed poles indicating a development in the works, as well as signage about a boutique hotel to be built on what was an empty space. 

A drive through just about any Southern California area these days includes some sort of development, new homes or mixed used space. There’s a push and pull to change. Each city and county has General Plans that are supposed to guide the short- and long-term land development and usage. However, when we add large sums of money into the mix, things change. Plans are somehow obscured. 

I’ve been covering grassroots activists groups throughout the city who are focused on maintaining the integrity in their neighborhoods, balancing affordable housing with open space and issues like density, parking, and traffic. I’ve listened to concerned residents detail how their trees were collateral damage during a demolition that weren’t even aware was happening or a soon-to-be designated historical cultural landmark being razed to make room for a McMansion or condos. 

Typically, developers hide behind land-use attorneys or city council people and staff with whom they appear to be cozy. That’s what makes the contention between The New Home Company and a group of Calabasas signature-gatherers especially interesting. 

The New Home Company, says Malibu Canyon Community Association president Mary Hubbard, has been working to prevent members of Save Malibu Canyon from gathering the necessary signatures to overturn Canyon Oaks, a three-story hotel and gated community of 71 homes at Las Virgenes and Agoura Road that was approved by Calabasas City Council in a 3-2 vote last month. The development, which required significant grading, would be built on a 77-acre vacant lot on the Las Virgenes corridor. 

If the petition drive is successful, the 16-acre project could be before Calabasas voters on the November ballot. The group will need the signatures of 10 percent of Calabasas registered voters or 1,500 signatures to get the petition on the November ballot. 

On July 9, deputies from the Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station were notified to intervene in a dispute at the Albertson’s shopping center between petition gatherers and several supporters of the project. Save Malibu Canyon had been granted permission to set up a table outside Albertson’s but six representatives of New Home positioned themselves to block the volunteers from approaching customers. The representatives also handed out fliers promoting the project. The Save Malibu Canyon volunteers said the New Home promoters were calling them names and intimidating shoppers so police were called in. 

The New Home Company has hired advocates to promote the benefits of the project, setting up a website to relay the benefits of the project and also to gather signatures to “decline the petition.” The group also took out a full-page “open letter to the community” to promote their project, which Hubbard says also attempts to discredit anyone in opposition to the project. 

“The most disingenuous thing they’ve done is to present that the only alternative would be maximum buildout for that property,” explains Hubbard. “Nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn’t make sense. We’ve shown up at city council meetings, commission meetings begging for a much smaller development. To present that we’re advocating for a maximum buildout is what has offended us the most.” 

Hubbard adds, “The city council should never have approved this project. Three people voted against what 99 percent of the residents who testified wanted. That’s why a direct democracy is important.”
If the referendum makes it to the ballot, city officials can either rescind their approval or refer the vote to election. Calabasas City Manager Tony Coroalles has said if the Canyon Oaks projects fails, the landowner would bring a larger project of up to 180 residential units and 155,000 square feet of commercial place, permitted in the General Plan. Coroalles adds that a larger project would severely impact traffic and that there is no demand for retail and office space in the western part of Calabasas. 

“From the city’s perspective, this (Canyon Oaks) is absolutely the best project we could hope for on this site… Something will be built,” says the city manager. Hubbard disagrees with the city manager’s assessment. “The only way this could be built to maximum entitlements is if the city council approves. Previous city councils have not approved projects that were too big for the property,” she says. “A Home Depot was proposed and previous council let the developers know this is a wildlife corridor with landslides, a hillside. What we are asking is to scale back the project to either a hotel or homes; not both. Now, the city is spreading misinformation. There is no reason a competent city council would approve of a maximum buildout on that property.” 

“We showed the city council other chains who have done beautifully designed two-story hotels with meandering walkways, nestled into the surroundings so then project doesn’t urbanize the area, which is the gateway to the Santa Monica Mountains. This project is next to a residential area, which the city rezoned to commercial,” she adds. 

Hubbard says the city used an illegal roundabout to get around Measure O, an open-space initiative passed by Calabasas voters. “Measure O requires rezoning is supposed to go to a vote before the people in this case. The city got around this in a convoluted way. In order for houses to be built where there is possibility of a landslide, they had to do extensive grading, over 2 million yards of cut and fill. They scoop out the dirt on hills to fill in the valleys and make it flat. The city presented this as a ‘health and safety issue to rationalize this. We are filing a lawsuit because we think this was illegal.” 

“If people vote against this, the project will be undone completely. They won’t be able to bring this forward for another year and it will send a message to the city council that they cannot ignore the citizens who testified and begged them not to approve, not to change the zoning and the general plans. They ignored us and did it anyway. We don’t think we have a good representative government,” Hubbard says. “A city survey concluded that preservation of open space and the view shed was the highest priority for 80 percent of residents surveyed. We moved here to escape over development. We aren’t asking for money or to build more buildings, whether preschools or senior citizen centers. The city council needs to listen to our priorities. Preservation of the natural environment has always been our priority.” 

Supporter’s opportunity to sign the petition and help get the initiative on the ballot in November have until July 22. The clock is ticking.

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

-cw

DANCE OF DENSITY-We have heard that one reason the Garcetti Administration has been demolishing the homes of poor people is to construct more dense units near Transit Corridors. They call these extra dense projects Transit Oriented Developments (TODs). Some people think that it is wise to cram high density construction near subways and light rail. As the LA Times reported, the City has approved the destruction of over 20,000 rent-controlled units since Garcetti was first elected as councilmember for CD 13 in 2001. 

What is the connection between demolishing thousands of poor people homes and the METRO Lines? 

Rent-controlled properties are older (pre-1978) and almost all of them are less dense than new projects which Garcetti wants constructed in the TODs. Since METRO lines already go where the housing has already existed for decades, there is very little vacant land for the TOD projects. Thus, existing rent-controlled units, i.e. the homes of the elderly, disabled and poor, obstruct Garcetti’s desire to create a Manhattan type density near transit lines. The solution of the Garcetti Administration is to demolish the homes of poor. 

Now, Valley Village has provided us all with proof positive that one purpose of destroying poor people’s homes is to increase new projects with much greater residential density so that bad parking and traffic conditions become so unbearable that people will give up their cars and use the METRO. The group Fix the City has previously alleged that the Garcetti Administration is intentionally making traffic much worse in an effort to coerce people to use the Metro System. 

Let’s be very clear – we are not talking about METRO’s serving the needs of the poor but rather the poor sacrificing their homes to satisfy the desires of METRO. This admission was made last Thursday, July 14, 2016, by a Garcetti appointee on the South Valley Area Planning Commission. Commissioner Dierking explained his voting to destroy rent-controlled apartments on property which the proposed developer did not even own. Here is Commissioner’s justification for destroying the homes of poor people, a quote from the hearing on the Hermitage-Weddington Project on July 14, 2016: 

“…as a METRO Employee this is a block and a half away from the orange line station and I want to see people talking less about parking and cars and more about walking to the bus and I think we need to create trans-oriented development route projects...I'd love to see the 48-unit project… ” 

After a hearing lasting hours, during which many residents provided extensive evidence of the great difficulty they were already having finding places to park, told stories of being attacked at night as they walked blocks to their homes, and complained of increasing traffic congestion, Garcetti’s appointee, who works for METRO, brushed aside all the testimony about parking and congestion as if he just does not want to see it. Instead, Garcetti’s appointee wanted to hear testimony about walking to take the bus. This is because his boss has a vested interest in more people taking the bus. 

In most cities, commissioners are not permitted to vote on issues which will benefit their employers. But, apparently, in Los Angeles the rules governing conflict-of-interest do not apply to Garcetti appointees – even when they admit in public that they have a conflict-of-interest. Thus, we see the decision to ignore the evidence and vote to benefit an employer. 

How far away from any semblance of fairness has the City gone for a commissioner to freely admit that his vote is to benefit his employer after stating he does not even want to hear evidence he does not like. No member of the public present at this hearing testified in favor of the Project. No one at the hearing thought that worse parking and more congestion were laudable goals -- except, it seems, Commissioner Dierking. 

After re-reading Commissioner Dierking’s admission, it’s clear that he not only says what type of testimony he does not want to see presented by the public, but he specifies what the public should be saying. Commissioner Dierking is upset that the public provided no support for Metro’s Let’s All Use the Bus mantra. 

We should note that this proposed destruction of more homes of the poor is right across the street from Marilyn Monroe’s home that was demolished with Garcetti-Krekorian approval three (3) days before the Cultural Heritage Commission hearing on the subject. 

Development does not necessarily mean “progress.” As we have seen in other places in Los Angeles, the term “development” has come to signify the predatory destruction of tens of thousands of homes of the elderly, disabled and poor because their homes are within a few clocks of Transit Oriented Districts. As Commissioner Dierking explained, the Garcetti Administration does not want to see any evidence of the harm which it is causing. Rather, the Garcetti Administration dictates to the public the type of evidence that they should present to support the destruction of their homes. It’s as if Garcetti were following a script out of a George Orwell novel. 

After years of destroying rent-controlled apartments and years of documentation that Los Angeles is slipping into decay due to the Garcetti Administration’s predatory practices, people need to assert themselves in order to save Los Angeles. 

Back in December 2013, famed international lawyer Mickey Kantor convened the prestigious 2020 Commission to address the deteriorating state of the City of Los Angeles. In its December 2013 Report Introduction, the 2020 Commission found: 

“Los Angeles is barely treading water while the rest of the world is moving forward. We risk falling further behind in adapting to the realities of the 21st century and becoming a City in decline. For too many years we have failed to cultivate and build on our human and economic strengths, while evading the hard choices concerning local government and municipal finance presented by this new century.” 

We are approaching the three year mark of this alarming indictment of the way Garcetti runs the City, but each day reveals new evidence of a predatory regime which has become so authoritarian that it dictates to its citizens what type evidence they should give at public hearings.

(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.) Graphic credit: LA Curbed. Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

DEEGAN ON LA-There’s been no shortage of ideas, proposals, concepts, wishes and dreams for how to provide housing for our city’s homeless population. Maybe even some prayers said in private. Some cost estimates go as high as $2 billion to provide supportive housing. Now, if only someone would agree to pay for it! That someone is looking more and more like the taxpayers, but to get them to vote “yes” on funding will take a lot of strong messaging from a variety of sources. 

Lots of political will is pushing for solutions, at both the city and county levels. But why hasn’t Cardinal José Horacio Gómez, spiritual leader of over four million Catholics in 287 parishes in the Archdiocese, spoken out? And, what about Gary L. Toebben, President and CEO of the LA Area Chamber of Commerce that represents the interests of over 235,000 businesses in LA County, an organization that sponsors more than 25 advocacy events annually? 

The most Toebben has said recently about homelessness in our city, was on January 19, 2016 in the face of impending El Nino rains: “I applaud the City and County for preparing these comprehensive and complimentary plans” (to care for the homeless if it rains heavily.) 

Three weeks later, on February February 9, 2016, he marginally increased his soft voice on homelessness by saying, “I urge you (the County Supervisors) to take the next step in ending our housing and homelessness crisis by adopting the Comprehensive Homeless Strategy before you today.” 

To “applaud” and to “urge”, essentially to be a cheerleader sitting on the sidelines, is a very weak form of advocacy from a business leader representing “member companies who are working to promote the economic vitality and quality of life in the LA region.” 

Do Toebben and the Chamber think that “quality of life” is reserved for the business class and is irrelevant to the homeless whose “quality of life” would be dramatically improved if able to transition into supportive housing? Could one of his 25 annual advocacy programs become one that tackles homelessness? 

As weak as this advocacy from Big Business is, the Church leadership performs even worse on the civic stage. Cardinal Gómez has said nothing about how he may lead the Church into a region-wide solution to homelessness. He’s not even offering to pray for them. This is hard to understand from a spiritual leader that has one of the largest megaphones in this heavily Catholic city. Some loud and strong words from him could activate the huge apparatus of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles into action. Yet he has revealed no voice, no plan for the homeless. 

It’s not just taxpayers that should be carrying the burden of providing for the homeless: corporate Los Angeles and religious Los Angeles must form a coalition with political Los Angeles to start providing some solutions. This includes encouraging their constituencies of businessmen and parishioners to support programs that they, Cardinal Gomez and Chamber President Toebben, create, articulate and lead; they should mobilize their followers with a call to action to help the city and county that are facing an uphill battle to get the voters to approve revenue schemes on the November 8 ballot. 

There will be two ballot measures, one from the city and one from the county. The city measure calls for taxpayers to carry new debt through bond payments; the county wants a vote in favor of a tax on marijuana, but that relies on the approval of the marijuana ballot initiative, California’s Adult Use of Marijuana Act. 

The Los Angeles City Council agreed to place a $1.2 billion bond initiative on the November city ballot to build more housing for the homeless, although there are strings attached: by law, the bond money could be used only for housing construction, not to provide services. 

The County reached a point where it had to choose between a 1/4 cent sales tax or a 10% levy on the gross receipts of businesses that produce or distribute marijuana and related products. It voted for the tax on weed, a risk since it hinges on the California Adult Use of Marijuana Act being approved by voters. Strings include restricting the tax-on-weed revenue to pay for mental health and substance abuse treatment, rental subsidies, emergency housing and other services intended to get and keep people off the streets. Annual revenue from this tax is estimated at $130 million. If voters approve legalization, the marijuana market would be valued at $1.3 billion annually and growing. 

According to LA County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, “The Board chose an uncertain marijuana business tax to fight homelessness, rather than a reliable 1/4 cent sales tax to put on the November ballot. The Board selected an option that would generate the least amount of money and take the longest amount of time to generate funds.” 

On the upside, Fortune Magazine recently reported that Colorado, a state with a fraction of our population, collected $1 billion in marijuana tax revenues last year. In the long run, the 10% tax on marijuana could be a significant money maker for the county. 

Neither the city nor the county measure is pure, and both must fight for attention among some nineteen statewide measures, as well as a handful of local measures, all on the November 8 ballot. Statewide measures include votes relating to adult entertainment, regulation of businesses, campaign finance, the death penalty, education, elections and campaigns, the environment, firearms, government accountability, healthcare, and legalization of marijuana. 

Ridley-Thomas continued, “There is no guarantee that voters in November will pass a measure legalizing the use of marijuana, and there are also many unresolved questions as to the impact on public health and safety on our communities-- particularly those that are most vulnerable.”… “However, I remain committed to securing the funds needed to address the homeless crisis in LA County.” 

The politicos cannot be the only ones speaking out to rally support for their proposals to help the homeless -- especially when the Church and the Chamber have the resources to aggressively join the conversation with loud voices. They have the means to take their place in the civic discourse about homelessness, an issue that concerns everybody in the city. Will they become leaders and join the conversation? Will they bring their followers along, now?

(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.

POLITICS--There is one place that the influence and power of California–the home of the sixth largest economy in the world, cultural icons and high tech gurus–is relatively insignificant: the Republican national convention.

Despite delivering the most delegates of any state and having the greatest representation in the Electoral College, California is little more than a side note at the GOP convention. The reason is simple: California cannot deliver those Electoral College votes for the Republican ticket. In the presidential election California is a Democratic stronghold.

The state’s delegates are being housed not in Cleveland, the convention’s host city, but in Sandusky, Ohio, an hour’s ride away from the convention. Officials will tell the delegates they are an hour away, but it will be longer. I’ve been to one of these events before. Delegates are told, for security reasons, the bus hauling the delegates cannot drive the same route all the time. Some of those side routes on city streets add considerably to the commute time. After convention hours, mingling with officials and other delegations or reporters is drastically reduced if delegates don’t want to miss the official bus back to Sandusky.

The California delegation can be grateful in one regard. In the recent past, the state delegation has been seated off to the side of the convention’s main podium, not directly in front of the podium and out of the camera’s eye. Out of site, out of mind. However, this year the large delegation is more or less to the center-right of the podium and up close.

The big question for state Republican leaders is how the Trump-Pence ticket will attract regular Californian Republican voters … or repel them. It may be a Trump-centric delegation in Cleveland, but Republicans from California not in Cleveland may not be as strong for the candidate and that could affect the party’s overall standing.

Trump supporters believe his stand on issues like immigration will grow support for the party. But the state party has been shrinking. The immigration issue, which is a major plank for the presumptive nominee, is played differently by California party officials, recognizing as they do, the demographics of the California electorate.

Trump advocates point out that he did his best in California capturing about 75 percent of the primary vote. But the nomination campaign was over by the time it reached the Golden State. Many Republican voters chose to vote for another name on the ballot or did not vote in the presidential primary election at all.

Can the California GOP withstand the negatives Trump has created over the course of the campaign? Will some Republicans follow the example of syndicated columnist George Will and re-register? I have heard from long time Republicans who said they are ready to register as No Party Preference voters when Trump is anointed. We’ll see, but the 27 percent Republican registration in California could fall even lower.

Before dismissing California’s as irrelevant to the national Republican Party, it must be acknowledged that California is important to the national GOP in one way — money. But big donors rarely are convention delegates. Candidates and party officials have to come to them so there will be plenty of fundraising pilgrimages to California over the course of the campaign.

Thinking optimistically, for the sake of the California GOP and its diminished influence, perhaps the seating arrangement is a bit of a positive sign.

(Joel Fox is the Editor of Fox & Hounds  … where this perspective was first posted … and President of the Small Business Action Committee.)

-cw

POLITICS--As if there weren't enough reasons for people to hate on notorious L.A. developer Geoff Palmer (photo above), who's brought the city such architectural atrocities as the Orsini and the Da Vinci, Palmer has given a Donald Trump Super PAC a cool $2 million, according to a Federal Election Commission quarterly report filed this weekend.

According to Bloomberg, that makes Palmer the biggest Trump donor in the country (besides, of course, Trump himself).

The Super PAC, Rebuilding America Now, which recently started running TV ads comparing Bill Clinton to Bill Cosby (!), is run by LA-based investor Tom Barrack, a close associate of Trump's. In June, Barrack told CNN that the Super PAC had attracted $32 million "in financial commitments" from four donors. But according to the quarterly report, the PAC has raised only $2,160,450 — though indeed, it is from four different donors. Nearly all the money has come from Palmer.

The man whom Curbed LA calls "Downtown's worst developer" owns at least six very large apartment buildings in Los Angeles, all with faux-Italian names: the Medici, the Visconti, the Orsini, the Piero, the Lorenzo and of course, the Da Vinci, which was set on fire in 2014 while it was still being built. 

In February, the city filed a $20 million lawsuit against Palmer, for not having an adequate fire protection plan.

The fire was only the latest in a series of misdeeds that have made Palmer the bete noire of urban boosters. There was the pedestrian bridge he wanted to build over Olympic Boulevard so that his residents wouldn't have to walk past homeless people; there was the historic 1880s Queen Anne house his construction workers "accidentally" destroyed while building the Orsini. 

Worst of all was his lawsuit, in 2007, over a city zoning law requiring downtown developers of large projects to reserve a number of units for low-income tenants. Palmer's victory in that lawsuit means California cities can't force developers to build affordable housing (though they can incentivize them to do so by granting density bonuses). 

So what's with Palmer's weird Italian fetish? In 2014, he told Los Angeles Magazine, “The Italians actually settled LA before the Spanish and Chinese."

(Hillel Aron writes for LA Weekly  … where this piece originated.)

-cw

GUEST COMMENTARY—(George Hofstetter’s column was written prior to former Sheriff Baca’s Monday appearance before Judge Percy Anderson … and proved to be prophetic. Judge Anderson threw out Baca’s plea deal saying that six months in jail was not enough.)  The medical diagnosis that former Sheriff Lee Baca is in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease is unfortunate, and we sympathize with him and his family. 

Some may claim justice was achieved when Mr. Baca pleaded guilty  in February to lying to FBI agents and federal prosecutors investigating inmate abuse at the Men's Central Jail. However, the reality is that his maximum sentence under the plea is a slap on the wrist and he may serve no time at all when he is formally sentenced by U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson on July 18. 

What should not be forgotten is that while Mr. Baca admitted his guilt, he also worked out a plea deal to avoid testifying under oath in any proceeding regarding his actions. As I have said before, ALADS does not celebrate the fact that the person the voters of Los Angeles County elected to lead our department has now been convicted of a federal crime. This conviction is a bitter lesson the current department leadership must absorb and overcome. 

While Mr. Baca's sentence will be the topic of the day, our focus and concern are for the deputy sheriffs who became mired in Baca's scandals. We remain disappointed by the sentences that were handed down to deputies in the past year for crimes relating to the Mr. Baca's jail scandal. These deputies and their families have already been punished, far more harshly than Mr. Baca. We believe the sentences handed down in those cases should have at least been proportional to the sentence Mr. Baca is facing.     

Justice requires that those who directed criminal conduct should not be the least punished. Mr. Baca's plea deal calls for a maximum of six months, which pales in comparison to the 18 to 41-month prison terms lower level personal are facing.  

Judge Anderson still must approve Mr. Baca's plea agreement and ALADS hopes federal prosecutors will revisit all of the sentencing that was handed out to the deputies who were following the directions given to them by Mr. Baca's leadership. 

Rank-and-file deputies are determined by our daily actions on the job, to show the public that the crimes committed by former department executives reflect only upon those executives and their leadership failures. We are not going to let the sins of former managers define our deputies, as that would not be an accurate representation of the honesty, hard work and integrity ALADS members and their co-workers exemplify every day. 

As we wait to hear Judge Anderson's decision in Mr. Baca's sentencing, we are confident the department's current leadership will ensure the failures of their predecessors will not define how we go forward from here.

(George Hofstetter is President of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. ALADS is the collective bargaining agent and represents more than 8,200 deputy sheriffs and district attorney investigators working in Los Angeles County.  George can be contacted at [email protected].) Photo: AP. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams

LATINO PERSPECTIVE--In Los Angeles County the question is not whether a major disaster will happen, but when. Experts expect an earthquake measuring 7.0 or greater in the next 30 years. The area is prone to wildfires, floods, and other natural disasters. Infectious disease outbreaks and terrorist attacks are also possible. 

Though aware of the risks, less than half of the population is prepared for such emergencies. Surveys show Hispanic communities are least prepared of all. 

VOICES FROM THE SQUARE--Is there really something wrong with Watts? Or have we just taught ourselves to think that way? I grew up in Watts, and for as long as I can remember I have been hearing negative stories about the community from family, friends, and the people I knew. At a very early age I learned that the crime rate was high, that the neighborhood was drug-infested, that the schools were hopeless, and that Watts was home to many ills. 

I heard so much about its dangers that I planned my life around avoiding them. The safest way to live, I figured, was to focus on my education to protect myself—with the expectation that I might one day leave. I spent most of my youth indoors reading and writing, instead of playing outside with the other children. 

I must admit that, while I never challenged Watts’ reputation as a kid, I was curious about where it came from. Watts had its problems, but it never felt half as bad in the experiencing as in the telling. And I never felt fearful in the way that people expected me to be. 

As I got older, it bothered me that when people who didn’t live in Watts talked about the community, they always seemed to talk about the 1965 Watts Riots. The fact that this is still true more than 50 years later, in 2016, seems bizarre, given how neighborhoods change and how few of the people who were there are still here. 

As I studied journalism and learned to write, I decided I had the power to change how people thought about Watts. Three years ago, having entered my mid-20s, I started to publish essays about Watts. I didn’t shrink from Watts’ problems, but I also wrote about my life and family and the joys of it.

One essay I wrote for Zócalo Public Square in 2014 became a sensation. In it, I praised Watts for offering a lot of institutions to help young parents and kids, but I wondered why it didn’t offer what I needed as a young, childless college student who was also working. I couldn’t print out an essay or get college-related advice anywhere in Watts. I closed the piece by suggesting that Watts needed a local neighborhood center with computers and guidance counselors who can help people who are trying to get ahead. 

I was especially frustrated because, with every passing day, the distance grew between Watts’ bad reputation and its improving reality. 

The essay was also published in Time magazine and became so popular that reporters started calling to interview me. Of course, many of them were preparing pieces in advance of the 50th anniversary of the Watts Riots. NBC included me in their special on the anniversary. I used every opportunity to talk about the virtues of the community, the ways it had changed, and the need to improve some of the statistics around poverty that fuel our reputation. 

I was proud of my work and glad for the attention, but for some reason, it didn’t feel right. I took a hiatus from writing articles to continue my schooling and work while I thought about why I felt unsettled. Was I approaching the story of changing Watts’ reputation wrongly? Had I not done enough? 

I was especially frustrated because, with every passing day, the distance grew between Watts’ bad reputation and its improving reality. Schools were getting better, crime and violence were even less common, and there were all kinds of fairs and programs in the community that seemed to lead to people getting jobs and health care. 

I didn’t have to go far to see this. Two impressive developments had launched within walking distance of my home. Last year, a College Track program opened in Watts, helping high school students enter college and also working with them so they can successfully complete their degrees. The second development came this January when chefs Roy Choi and Daniel Patterson opened a much-needed restaurant down the street from me and it quickly became a favorite among people in the neighborhood.

Things were looking up for Watts, and for me. I even received a letter in the mail giving me permission to use an old community recreational room to jumpstart my own resource center—exactly like the one I envisioned in my Zócalo article.  

Pedestrian bridge over Blue Line tracks, Watts. 

But I was less than thrilled -- Watts’ reputation still wasn’t moving as fast as Watts. 

Then one day, I had a conversation with my neighbor for an article I was planning to write to end my self-imposed sabbatical. He had lived in Watts for as long as I could remember and was very popular in the neighborhood. I asked him what he thought of all the improvements in Watts, and his reply really hit me: “To be real with you, I just lay my head there. I’m like most people, I don’t really pay attention to that stuff.”

I thought this was funny at first. But then I thought about it some more, and some more after that, and it hit me. He was deeply right. 

I’m glad for the changes, but they didn’t really mean that much to me, or my own experience of Watts. Because Watts was never to me anything like the place people think it was. And if it didn’t really matter to him or matter to me -- we had built lives here -- why was I worrying so much about its reputation? 

My problem was mine, not Watts’. Why was I making myself unhappy worrying about a reputational problem that wasn’t in my power to fix? 

Watts is a fine place, with problems and virtues like other places; I’m proud to live here and I value it for what it’s given me. After all, hadn’t I learned the value of education here in Watts, sometimes from the same people who taught me about Watts’ ills? I have more positive to say about this place than negative (and I’m very grateful to see more and more positive things blooming here). And now that I’ve allowed myself to be happy about Watts, my goals feel even clearer. I won’t stay in my house, and I’m going to go outside and get my resource center up and running. 

You can think what you want about Watts. I’m too busy enjoying my neighborhood to care.

(Shanice Joseph, a journalist and student, lives in Watts. This essay is part of South Los Angeles: Can the Site of America's Worst Modern Riots Save an Entire City?, a special project of Zócalo Public Square and The California Wellness Foundation.) Photos by Steve Hymon. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

TRANSIT TALK-I’m home again, for a few minutes at least. Hey, cut me some slack; have you ever heard of snow and ice? It’s summer and to fully appreciate the places I’ve been, this is the best time of the year to be there. 

As usually happens when I spend time soaking up the energy of great cities, I feel enriched and inspired to bring some of those lessons home to Los Angeles. My latest trip took me to New York, Chicago and Madison, Wisconsin. And all three cities get a shout out for re-envisioning and making great things happen in their streets, open spaces or transit. 

What New York has done with its Hudson River waterfront and extension of the 7 Train west to the Hudson Yards  is legendary, and Madison is practically Mecca to a bike rider. 

Away from Los Angeles, It was a week of contrasts, a chance to scope out the most expensive transit improvement -- the Calatrava station at New York’s World Trade Center site -- and the most basic of massive domestic urban transit systems, Chicago’s seemingly ubiquitous L. 

My biggest shout out goes to the much maligned city of Chicago. Why do people hate on Chicago? For all that city’s violent crime, failing schools and missteps of its tone deaf mayor, Chicago is awesome, to use a word I can’t believe I just uttered, given my age. 

Between some of the world’s finest urban architecture, beautiful parks, great transit and bike share, terrific food and music, vibrant neighborhoods and a lake the size of an ocean, I’ll take it. 

In light of the terrible news of the past two weeks, how great it is to have something homegrown and American Made to celebrate. 

Whoever would have thought we would live to see the same sort of shameful attacks on the Black Lives Matter movement that plagued this country back in 1968? 

Attention No Faux News and you other haters: a disciplined civil disobedience movement à la SNCC and Dr. King himself did not murder five police officers in Dallas. RIP the officers as well as Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. We are better as a country than the side of things we have seen as of late. 

But let’s get back to Chicago. Won’t you please come to Chicago?  

I remember that it gets cold in the Windy City, as in really cold, but the views south from the Lincoln Park Nature Boardwalk and north and west from The Field Museum and Adler Planetarium in Grant Park are breathtaking urban landscapes (photo above) that rival anything one finds on either coast. 

Given the week’s news, I had second thoughts about leaving behind bucolic Madison, my free summer Bcycle bikeshare membership and chair near the stage on The Terrace at the University of Wisconsin Memorial Union. The brats and beer and open mic night on Lake Mendota alone almost justified the out-of-state tuition at one of the Country’s finest public (and private) universities. And that’s even after years of Scott Walker’s shameful efforts to eviscerate The Wisconsin Ideal.  

Though I was sorry to miss the opening day of Bike Metro, LA’s new bikeshare program, Bcycle, Madison’s protected bike lanes and its lakeside paths helped me appreciate the significance of bikeshare’s arrival in Los Angeles as nothing short of transformational. It’s a shot in the arm for the growing chorus of support for complete streets in Southern California. 

After the time I spent in Madison, Chicago beckoned me. The “express” Van Galder bus from Madison hit a traffic wall around Austin and Cicero. But that was okay for me as there were CTA Blue Line tracks running down the middle of the Eisenhower Expressway. Sure, the train line is not pretty and standing on those platforms in the winter must be brutal, but let’s focus on the positive; the line exists and offers functional, frequent 24/7 transit to thousands of daily riders. 

In spite of Chicago’s traffic, reminiscent of any hour on the 5, 405, 10, 110, 605, 710 (need I go on?) we eventually made it to The Loop where the real fun started at Chicago’s Union Station. A walk/architectural tour through The Loop of the big shouldered city and along the Chicago River (with kayakers!) never disappoints. 

With the quiet Expo Line to Santa Monica in mind, I have a soft spot in my heart for the noisy, gritty L, a largely bare bones urban transit system that rivals New York’s bursting at the seams behemoth. If Chicago was building the L today, it would never get its basic design past the public and the Federal Transit Administration. But there it is, in all its Loop-centric glory, taking riders nearly everywhere in the sprawling city. 

All over Chicago, I saw plenty of rust and the lines are pretty noisy at times. But, assuming the tracks and trains are safe, to an inveterate transit fan, the rattles and rust are small prices to pay for the frequency that we can only dream of for our own LA Metro. 

For a “city junkie,” there is almost nothing like riding the L through The Loop and out into Chicago’s vibrant neighborhoods. 

On the active transportation front, Chicago’s robust Divvy bikeshare program is super popular, especially near the Lake and parks, making it hard to find a bike at some of the stations. 

The takeaway for LA is: build out our transit fast and within budget and give Angelenos the frequency they need and the system will land discretionary riders who don’t even think about driving. This is what LA Metro’s November Ballot Initiative is all about and why we need to vote for it early and often as they would in Chicago. 

Just don’t get me started about the fact that Chicago’s Blue Line goes all the way to O’Hare, not just nearby, requiring a second ride. 

Since I probably sound like a PR flack for Chicago, I should add that I saw some annoying things there like Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s name on the sign at Bixler Playlot Park in Hyde Park, as if Rahm paid for the playground himself. 

In LA, of course, we would never put the name of a living County Supervisor on the name of a regional park. Never! Right? 

And I am not so nearsighted that I missed the resilient blight and crime that plagues much of Chiraq’s South Side and West Side. 

But in Chicago, like in New York, I also saw a vibrant city where races mix, at least on the L and in the street and parks along the Lake. 

LA fascinates me because its density and clash of dreams and cultures creates a built environment that is greater than the sum of its parts. Our cousins in Chicago and Madison and New York are also doing great things that can teach us a thing or two about how to build and rebuild cities that work. 

Now let’s get out and vote. 

(Joel Epstein is a senior advisor to companies, law firms, foundations and public initiatives on communications strategy, corporate social responsibility (CSR), recruiting and outreach. He is a contributor to CityWatch and can be contacted at [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

THE CITY-All cultures have death rituals. America’s is familiar to all. We are shocked when people are killed. Yes, shocked! It hasn’t happened in, well, maybe a few weeks. And we’re shocked that such a thing can happen in America. 

On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen guns down 49 people inside a gay night club and less than a month later, on July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson guns down five police officers in Dallas. In between, we had daily murders across the nation including what appears to be two executions by police officers – victims Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. 

Out come the votive candles, the tears, the wailing, the recriminations – oh, it is all so well scripted. We have to hurry up and finish our death ritual over the Dallas police death because in our predatory violent culture, the next mass murder is in the making. 

Americans need to take stock of their culture and admit some things to themselves.

(1) We live in a violent predatory culture. 

(2) We love our violent predatory culture. 

(3) We have no intention of changing our violent predatory culture. 

The habitual murders reflect our collective consciousness. Other countries don’t have similar violence, but then they’re pussies. Just ask Donald Trump. Just ask the NRA which insists that the answer to gun violence is more gun violence. Who agrees with the NRA? The United States Congress. Yes, we ourselves and the culture which we have fashioned for ourselves are the problem. 

Gun control, however, is a silly place to start. No predatory culture will give up its best weapon to kill other people. We cannot even stop insane people and terrorists from buying guns. Besides, railing against too many guns is merely one obligatory part of the Death Ritual. 

As long as we support a predatory culture where the wealthy rape the poor, gun violence will be with us every day, 365 days per year. 

What is a predatory culture and how do we know we live in one? 

If your country allows a handful of Wall Street investment bankers crash the world economy and your President’s response is to give them trillions of dollars, you live in a predatory country. 

If your country locks up more people for longer periods of time than any other industrialized nation, you live in a predatory country. 

If your country believes that adequate health care is a privilege for the wealthy, you live in a predatory county. 

If 60% of the people in your country think the death penalty is a good thing, you live in a predatory country. 

If you live in a city which destroys 20,000 rent-controlled apartments and then proposes to give $1.2 billion to the millionaires who tore down the poor people’s homes, you live in a predatory city. 

Recently, we saw the LA City Council once again unanimously approve the destruction of poor people homes so that the Cherokee Apartments could be turned into a boutique hotel. 

Right now Councilmember Krekorian, recently famous for his needless destruction of Marilyn Monroe’s Valley Village home (photo above), is now showing more of his sadistic streak with the demolition of more Valley Village homes at the intersection of Hermitage and Weddington. 

Let’s be very clear about this project. It will demolish long time Valley Village homes in order to make way for tax shelters for the rich and famous. Few Angelenos have heard about this most recent scam where established homes are destroyed, and in their place, we have In-Fill projects of so-called single family homes (small lot subdivisions), which are nothing more than apartments constructed on top of garages. 

The finances behind these frauds took a while to reveal itself. Since Wall Street has soured on the glut of large apartment complexes in Los Angeles, Garcetti, Krekorian, O’Farrell and others have devised a new scam. They still construct apartments, but they call them Small Lot development so that each apartment is treated as if it were a single family home. This charade allows each apartment to be sold individually as a tax shelter. 

The key to a tax shelter is that it loses money. That loss is beneficial to millionaires who need write-offs against profits elsewhere in their portfolios. An entire apartment complex is too large and apartments may not be legally sold as separate entities. Thus, we have the new scam, i.e. the apartments are designed to be standing units so that they can be sold to non-investors who need tax write offs. 

Thus, Krekorian’s plan is based on the sadistic impulse to destroy people’s homes so that his buddies can build tax shelters for the world’s wealthy. 

In our predatory culture, we see nothing wrong with that. Angelenos do not care that their City Hall is crimogenic and the LA City Council is run as a criminal enterprise.  If we will not stop Garcetti’s rampage on the poor after 20,000 rent-controlled units were destroyed, if we will not stop O’Farrell as he rewards the Cherokee Hotel for making the elderly, disabled and poor into the homeless, if we will not stop Krekorian in his ravaging of Valley Village, then we are the supporters of the predatory culture which routinely gives rise to these mass murders. 

Mark your calendars. The next mass murder has been penciled in for around August 10̀-20th, during which time, LA will have made a hundred or so more people homeless. 

Or we could reject the City’s sadistic predatory culture which daily destroys more of our homes, making more Angelenos homeless. 

We can Choose Life or continue the American Death Ritual.

(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.) Graphic credit: LA Curbed. Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EXPOSED—Want to know who has the most to gain/lose in politics? Follow the money. MapLight has done that for us on California’s ballot measures. Who’s ‘for’ the legalization of pot? Who’s against it? Keep reading.

1 — There are 17 measures that have qualified for California’s November ballot, covering everything from death and taxes to sex, drugs, and guns.

2 — Initiative campaigns have already raised about $185 million.

3 — The biggest spender so far is the pharmaceutical industry. It has contributed $70 million — or 38 percent of all the money raised for ballot measures so far — to fight Proposition 61, which would limit the prices state agencies pay for prescription drugs.

4 — Unions, school administrators, and the California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems have given $19 million to the campaign for Proposition 55, which would extend an income tax increase on people earning more than $250,000 a year.

5 — Tom Steyer, a billionaire and possible Democratic contender for governor in 2018, has contributed $1 million to support Proposition 56. The measure would increase the cigarette tax by $2 per pack.

6 — Some big names in Silicon Valley, including Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Paul Graham of Y Combinator, and Marc Benioff of Salesforce have given money to support Proposition 62, a measure that would repeal the death penalty and replace it with life in prison without the possibility of parole.

7 — A competing measure, Proposition 66 is aimed at eliminating delays in carrying out the death penalty by imposing time limits on legal reviews of capital convictions. It has the support of law enforcement groups.

8 — Supporters of Proposition 64, a measure to legalize marijuana, have raised over $7 million. Napster founder Sean Parker has contributed about $2.8 million.

9 — The committee opposed to legalizing pot, the Coalition for Responsible Drug Policies, Sponsored by California Public Safety Institute, has raised $141,000.

10 — A measure requiring actors in adult films to wear condoms, Proposition 60, has raised more than $1.6 million from its only financial supporter, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

Methodology:
MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to the ballot measure committees associated with California’s November 2016 ballot measures. All numbers are based on latest data made available by the California Secretary of State as of July 7, 2016.

(Bret Hendry is the Communications Manager at MapLight.) 

-cw

CALWATCHDOG--New polling and a surprise endorsement light up Loretta Sanchez’s quest for the U.S. Senate — but both also illustrate the challenges ahead. 

Sanchez — a Democratic congresswoman from Orange County — is hoping to cobble together enough votes from a mix of Latinos, Republicans, independents and Democrats to carry her past Democratic Attorney General Kamala Harris, the frontrunner. 

Harris won first place in the June primary by a wide margin — 40 percent to 19 percent — with the vote split between 34 candidates. Polling released Friday gives a clearer picture of how the two candidates stack up head to head, showing Harris in a comfortable, yet surmountable, lead.

And while the polling suggests Sanchez still faces significant difficulties winning over Republicans, Hugh Hewitt, a popular conservative radio host from Orange County, endorsed her on his show on Thursday, giving Sanchez her second high-profile Republican endorsement since the primary. 

POLLING--To win, Sanchez will likely need around a third of Democrats, the vast majority of Latinos and more than half of independents and Republicans to cast their ballots for her. 

A Field Poll released Friday showed Harris with a 15-point lead (39 percent to 24 percent). The good news for Sanchez was that 22 percent of respondents were undecided, the bad news was that 15 percent — a large portion of which were Republicans — said they’d vote for neither. 

Harris led among voters in nearly every category, including among Republicans, independents and Southern California voters (Harris is from the Bay Area). 

Sanchez, however, had a strong lead among Latinos, a nice lead among voters ages 18 to 39, and a slight lead among voters making less than $40,000 annually. 

Republicans--Perhaps the most troubling data point for Sanchez was the 31 percent of Republicans who said they wouldn’t vote in the Senate race, essentially saying they would just skip over that race on the ballot without one of their own to choose from. 

Mike Madrid, a Republican consultant who specializes in Latino issues, said he doubted the Republican undervote will be as “significant as other Democrat demographics” and believes Sanchez has a chance to win in November. 

“I think there’s a very real shot,” Madrid said. “Difficult, certainly; but absolutely possible.” 

Fragile coalition--Sanchez walks a fine line in appealing to Latinos and Republicans, as the former is increasingly dissatisfied with the latter. 

And she can’t veer too far to the right and hope to win a large chunk of Democrats or vice versa. After all, Sanchez is still a partisan Democrat and has strong support from Democratic lawmakers and constituencies, including unions.  

While some Republican insiders have reached out to Sanchez, introducing her to donors and voters behind closed doors, few are willing to make overt displays of support. 

Endorsements--Republicans like Hewitt who have come out in support of Sanchez give cover to other Republicans who may have a tough time voting for a Democrat by finding her to be the moderate candidate, or at least the lesser of two evils. 

The Libertarian-leaning Orange County Register Editorial Board endorsed Sanchez during the primary (while Republicans were still in the race), primarily for voting against the Iraq War in 2003, for voting against the PATRIOT ACT (which expanded the federal government’s use of surveillance against U.S. citizens), and for opposing the 2008 bank bailout. 

Hewitt called her the more “moderate” of the two candidates and said he would occasionally find consensus with Sanchez in military and defense issues — Sanchez sits on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee.  

“You and I are not going to agree a lot, but occasionally, we’re going to agree on Armed Services and some Defense appropriation issues,” Hewitt told Sanchez on air Thursday. “I’m not going to agree with your opponent ever.” 

In June, Richard Riordan, the former Republican Mayor of Los Angeles, endorsed Sanchez for her opposition to the Iraq War and for her ability to work across the partisan aisle to pass legislation. 

Congressional Quarterly recently listed Sanchez as one of the 25 most influential women in Washington, for being a “debate shaper and swing vote.” For the majority of her nearly two decades in Congress, she’s been in the minority party, meaning most accomplishments have been made with an element of compromise. 

“I’ve known Loretta Sanchez for many years, she is tough and not afraid to take a stand on important issues,” Riordan said at the time. “(Sanchez) knows how to work with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.” 

Sanchez actually used to be a Republican, dating back to high school in Anaheim. But similar to Latinos today repulsed from the Republican Party by its presumptive presidential nominee, Sanchez switched when she heard former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan warn of the “illegal invasion” of Mexicans coming across the country’s southern border, according to the Los Angeles Times. 

Uphill climb--Even if Sanchez can unite behind her Republicans, Latinos, independents and leftover Democrats, she still faces an opponent in Harris who has statewide name recognition and the full backing of the Democratic establishment, which in California has so often proven to be enough.  

For every play she makes for one group, she risks alienating voters of another group. Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio said, for example, attacking Harris, the attorney general, as being soft on crime was a decent strategy, but risks losing appeal among progressives. 

And despite Sanchez’s moderate profile as a member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Caucus and her independent streak on larger issues, she still has a fairly liberal voting record in the House.

“It’s an uphill climb,” said Maviglio. “What credentials does Loretta Sanchez have to appeal to Republicans? She’s been a partisan Democrat in the House. Is she less liberal than Kamala Harris? Only by a hair. That’s not a convincing argument.”

(Matt Fleming writes for CalWatchdog … where this piece was first posted.)

-cw