The LA Charter That Keeps on Giving … to the LA Council Members That Is

LA WATCHDOG

LA WATCHDOG--Section 245 (see below) of the Los Angeles City Charter allows the City Council to assert jurisdiction over any action by the Board of Commissioners of a City Commission by a two-thirds vote of the Council.  There are certain exceptions for the Ethics Commission, pension plans, and personnel matters.  

While the City Council has the ability to veto the action by a two-thirds vote, it does not have the ability to “amend, or take any action with respect to the Board’s action.”   

However, there is an exception for City Planning that allows the City Council to amend the action of the City Planning Commission or the local Area Planning Commissions.  

And my oh my, have the members of the City Council taken advantage of this loophole.   They have extracted millions in campaign contributions and other favors from real estate speculators and developers, regardless of the impact on our neighborhoods and the increase in traffic.  

The Los Angeles Times had a well-researched, front-page expose of the $600,000 in pay to play campaign contributions involving the approval of the $72 million Sea Breeze residential development in the Harbor area of the City.   In this case, the City Council reversed the decision of the Area Planning Commission and the City Planning Commission, both of which had turned down the developer’s request for a zoning change for this industrial zoned property.  

This City Council granted variance resulted in an increase in the value of the land of $25 million according to a CityWatch article by Austin Beutner.  Of course, the beneficiaries of these laundered campaign contributions (Council members Joe Buscaino, Jose Huizar, Mitch Englander, and Nury Martinez as well as Supervisor Janice Hahn and Mayor Eric Garcetti) claim with a straight face and a touch of indignation that these overly generous cash contributions from people they had never met before did not influence their decision to grant the developer’s request. 

There is also the recent action of the City Council that permitted a Beverly Hills developer to erect a 27 story residential skyscraper in a low-rise neighborhood in Koreatown.  In this case, $1.25 million in contributions to two slush funds bought the cooperation of Mayor Eric Garcetti and City Council President Herb Wesson.   

The list of developments where money talks goes on and on, including, but certainly not limited to, the Palladium in Hollywood, the Reef in South LA, the Cumulus at Jefferson and Rodeo, as well as many other mega-developments throughout the City that will cause increased congestion and stress on our already overtaxed infrastructure. 

The net is that real estate speculators and developers make billions, our local politicians collect millions, and we and our neighborhoods get the shaft.  

One of the major benefits of Measure S is that it will put the brakes on the corrupt pay to play culture at City Hall as “up zoned” developments will be prohibited under the two year moratorium.  This will protect our neighborhoods and our quality of life while the City engages in real planning in an open and transparent manner. 

So NO to pay-to-play corruption.  Say YES to real planning.  And Vote YES on Measure S. 

+++++++++ 

Sec. 245.  City Council Veto of Board Actions. 

Actions of boards of commissioners shall become final at the expiration of the next five meeting days of the Council during which the Council has convened in regular session, unless the Council acts within that time by two-thirds vote to bring the action before it or to waive review of the action, except that as to any action of the Board of Police Commissioners regarding the removal of the Chief of Police, the time period within which the Council may act before the action of the Board shall become final shall be ten meeting days during which the Council has convened in regular session. 

   (a)   Action by Council.  If the Council timely asserts jurisdiction over the action, the Council may, by two-thirds vote, veto the action of the board within 21 calendar days of voting to bring the matter before it, or the action of the board shall become final. Except as provided in subsection (e), the Council may not amend, or take any other action with respect to the board’s action. 

   (b)   Waiver.  The Council may, by ordinance, waive review of classes or categories of actions, or, by resolution, waive review of an individual anticipated action of a board.  The Council may also, by resolution, waive review of a board action after the board has acted.  Actions for which review has been waived are final upon the waiver, or action of the board, as applicable. 

   (c)   Effect of Veto.  An action vetoed by the Council shall be remanded to the originating board, which board shall have the authority it originally held to take action on the matter. 

   (d)   Exempt Actions.  The following actions are exempt from Council review under this section: 

   (1)   actions of the Ethics Commission; 

   (2)   actions of the Board of Fire and Police Pension Commissioners; 

   (3)   actions of the Board of Administration for Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System; 

   (4)   actions of the Board of Administration of Water and Power Employees Retirement Plan; 

   (5)   quasi-judicial personnel decisions of the Board of Civil Service Commissioners; 

   (6)   actions of a board organized under authority of the Meyers-Milias Brown Act for administration of employer-employee relations; 

   (7)   individual personnel decisions of boards of commissioners other than the Board of Police Commissioners; and 

   (8)   actions which are subject to appeal or review by the Council pursuant to other provisions of the Charter, ordinance or other applicable law. 

   (e)   Exceptions for Actions of City Planning Commission and Area Planning Commissions.  The Council shall not be limited to veto of actions of the City Planning Commission or Area Planning Commissions, but, subject to the time limits and other limitations of this section, after voting to bring the matter before it, shall have the same authority to act on a matter as that originally held by the City Planning Commission or Area Planning Commission.

+++++++++

 (Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and is the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council.  He is a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate.  Jack is affiliated with Recycler Classifieds -- www.recycler.com.  He can be reached at:  lajack@gmail.com.)

-cw

BLOG COMMENTS POWERED BY DISQUS