LOS ANGELES

CONNECTING CALIFORNIA--All the debate about how to address California’s massive housing shortage is obscuring the big picture: a state takeover of local housing policy has begun.

That’s the real import of the more than 100 bills that have been introduced in the legislature to change housing policy in various ways. None of the current proposals is up to the task of getting the state to build sufficient housing. But the varied legislative activity—proposals to cover production incentives for builders, rental assistance, streamlining regulations, new regional planning initiatives, increased enforcement of state housing laws, and even taxation of second homes—clearly signals the state’s intention to take a leading role in how California houses itself.

The prospect of a Sacramento intervention is usually worrisome. But this one should be welcomed. The threat of the state seizing power may be one of the few levers that could prompt the biggest obstacles to new housing—local governments—to get out of the way.

One can hardly blame state government for aggressive meddling in housing. California has a nasty history of destabilizing calamities: from the run-up in housing prices in the 1970s that produced the Prop 13 backlash; to the debt-fueled mid-2000s increases that led to the housing crash and the Great Recession.

Today, California’s crisis is rising prices resulting from a profound failure to create enough units to meet the population’s needs. While the state needs an estimated 180,000 new units a year, it has been getting less than half of that. By one estimate, the resulting shortage is a $140 billion annual drag on the state economy. Companies and individuals leaving the state most often cite housing costs as their top reason. Home ownership is at the lowest rate in California since the 1940s.

The crisis also represents a public health issue. Millions of Californians pay so much for housing that they have less to spend on health care, food, education, and transportation. Housing costs force Californians into long commutes that damage our health, infrastructure, and environment. And housing prices are one big reason why California suffers from the greatest homelessness and the highest poverty rate of any state.

Adding to the difficulty is the bewildering mix of federal, state, and local policies that affect housing. Federal and state programs support people who seek housing and those who wish to provide moderately priced housing. But such programs are tiny compared to the need for subsidies in expensive California; the Legislative Analyst’s Office found that most low-income households receive no assistance with housing, and that nearly twice as many households are on waiting lists for housing vouchers as there are available vouchers.

Local governments add to the shortage by passing and enforcing limits on housing development, density, and sometimes rents themselves. This local hostility to new housing is fueled by NIMBYism, environmentalism, and a state fiscal system that encourages local governments to pursue retail development (which produces sales tax for local coffers) instead of housing.

The state’s goal should be straightforward: more housing. That should mean more assistance to those seeking housing, more incentives to produce more housing, and fewer regulations that limit housing.

The state has a great deal to do, but its goal should be straightforward: more housing. That should mean more assistance to those seeking housing, more incentives to produce more housing, and fewer regulations that limit housing. But the politics are wickedly complicated, even by California standards.

The debate is already dividing key interests that must come together to pass ambitious laws. Labor is split on housing, as building trades unions oppose reforms to lower housing costs, a change that would benefit working-class members of service sector unions. There also are divides among environmentalists (between those who embrace denser development and hardliners who oppose any growth at all), advocates for the poor (between those who want to revive poorer communities with new housing and those who fear new housing will merely displace poor people), and even among Republicans (between those who want to protect older people and their housing values and those who want more housing for the young families in their inland communities).

“I’m not super optimistic about the state being a positive force in housing yet,” says Chris Hoene, executive director of the California Budget & Policy Center. “The number and range of proposals suggests that there isn’t consensus yet among state leaders and housing advocates about what levers to pull.”

Some of the more than 100 housing bills could make things worse, by adding to the costs of housing, or creating disincentives for local governments to approve housing. It’s also difficult to make even small gains in encouraging more housing for poor and working-class people.

State Senator Toni Atkins of San Diego, for example, has built a formidable coalition behind a bill to provide a dedicated funding stream to support below-market housing. Politically, such funding would be a major breakthrough. But the legislation would produce just $250 million a year, a fraction of the tens of billions in affordable housing needs statewide.

And subsidized housing reflects only a fraction of the California housing market. The Legislative Analyst’s Office has called for a focus on encouraging additional private housing construction in high-demand coastal areas. Shortages there, the legislative analyst said, have rippled across the state, sending people further inland in search of cheaper housing, and driving up housing costs for everyone in the process.

The crisis is urgent and has been years in the making, and the state’s legislative efforts to gain power over the problem could take many years, with hiccups and mistakes. Is there any way to go faster? Perhaps, but it would require the politically difficult step of empowering developers.

One model, with roots in Massachusetts, gives private developers, nonprofit organizations, and local authorities great powers to challenge land-use regulations that prevent housing development. The developers get an especially free hand in localities that fail to meet state requirements on housing. The Massachusetts model thus puts local governments on the defensive. They can no longer say no to housing projects; they either must make plans for housing, or watch as developers do as they please.

Such pressure from the state may sound extreme. But so are the consequences of our housing shortage.

(Joe Mathews is Connecting California Columnist and Editor at Zócalo Public Square … where this column first appeared. Mathews is a Fellow at the Center for Social Cohesion at Arizona State University and co-author of California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It (UC Press, 2010)

-cw

EDUCATION POLITICS--(Steve Zimmer, who is running for re-election for the Los Angeles Unified School District school board, wrote this unusual article, “The Case Against Myself.” The election is Tuesday. Decide for yourself whether he persuaded you.)

I want to present four legitimate arguments against me. These are good and fair reasons to vote against me on May 16th.

I know this is unusual, but because my opponent has lied so much about my record, I thought I would just go ahead and do this myself. I hope you will share this with your friends and family and explain to them that everything they are reading about me is a lie whether it is on the television, on the radio, or wrapped around their Sunday newspaper. Give them the real reasons to vote against me. Here they are:

1. I believe independent charter schools need to be regulated to ensure that they serve every student that comes to their school house door. I believe independent, privately operated charter schools must be accountable for all public funds they receive. I believe charter schools should operate in the district that authorizes them. If you believe independent charter schools should be completely de-regulated, you should vote against me.
2. I have moved resources to meet the needs of district students living in the highest concentrations of poverty, including thousands in my own district. In real and understandable ways, this has been difficult for certain schools in my district. But I believe it is the only moral way to do this job when 83% of students in the LAUSD live below the poverty line. Some voters may be concerned about these decisions and choose to support my opponent who has only focused his campaign in the more affluent areas of the district.
3. I have been endorsed by the teachers and school employees of our district. I work with our teachers and I work with their union. I vote against their recommendations when I think they are wrong. But it is a priority for me to build trust with the people who deliver education to our students, to be allies in our struggle for equity, to make significant improvement in LAUSD schools. If you don’t believe I should engage our teachers and their unions then I understand why you would vote against me.
4. I oppose the ranking of teachers, students, and schools. I oppose high stakes standardized testing. I believe that the things that are the most beautiful and wondrous about children can never be measured by a standardized test. If you believe we should be constantly testing and ranking students, teachers and schools then I understand why you wouldn’t support me.ur workday the right

Bottom of Form

This is what I have done. I understand some people can’t vote for someone who has done this.

But Nick Melvoin hasn’t used any of these reasons. Instead he has lied and he has distorted. I can’t stop someone from lying, but I can certainly tell you that this is not how you should win an election. Here are some of the lies he tells about me:

Nick’s Lie #1: The iPads were my program

The Actual Truth #1: The iPad program was started by Melvoin supporter John Deasy. I voted to end the program once it became clear that Deasy had lied to the school board and lied to the public.

Nick’s Lie #2: I created a $1.4 billion deficit.

The Actual Truth #2: The Board has balanced our budget every year. With the Governor’s latest announcement , we will have our budget balanced for 10 years straight.

Nick’s Lie #3:: I lowered graduation standards

The Actual Truth #3: We raised the rigor for all students by ensuring that all students be enrolled in college preparatory courses. While we increased rigor, we have raised graduation rates to record levels, from 56% to over 75%

Nick’s Lie #4: I laid off teachers

The Actual Truth #4: I anchored the difficult negotiations that allowed us to save our schools and save thousands of jobs

Nick’s Lie #5: I cut arts education

The Actual Truth #5: I stopped the cuts to arts education and have added over 18 million dollars to the arts budget each year.

I respect the democratic process and I value debate about the important issues facing our public schools. But that’s not what’s happened in this election. I am not perfect and I try to be a better board member every day. If Nick and the California Charter Schools Association waged an honest campaign, I would not be writing this argument against myself. It terrifies me that such an important election could be determined solely on lies and distortions. It should scare us all.

There is much more than even the control of our public schools that is on the line this Tuesday.

Our democratic values and the value of truth itself seem to have worked their way into this moment. I am proud to stand for honesty and service. I hope we can set a better example for our kids.

(Steve Zimmer represents District 4 — which stretches from the Westside to the West San Fernando Valley — on the LAUSD school board. Peter Dreier is professor of politics and chair of the Urban & Environmental Policy Department at Occidental College and an occasional contributor to CityWatch.)

-cw

CORRUPTION WATCH-When the courts jettison facts and law, all of society suffers. The resulting corruption is so systemic that people often cannot recognize where things went wrong. As we previously showed, but for the corrupt California judiciary, we would not have had the 1992 Insurrection in South Central. Not only did judges hideously abuse Blacks but the courts maneuvered moving the Rodney King Trial to Simi Valley in order to secure a victory for the police officers on trial. The corrupt nature of the California courts is not limited to victimization of minorities: rather, abusive “corruptionism” is its essential character. 

How did California end up with such a corrupt system? 

Starting with the judicial elections of 1986, the California judicial system has been devolving into a primitive institution that threatens society itself. Without taking the effort to consider the type of people who would be put in charge of the state court system, Californians ousted three judges because they were not killing enough people. That allowed Governor Deukmejian to appoint his law partner, Malcolm Lucas, as Chief Justice; and he appointed three new “hangin’ judges” to the Supreme Court. 

Myths blind Californians to the court’s danger to society. 

Californians allow myths and taboos to control their minds and this perpetuates a system in which personal loyalty enables cronyism to trump the rule of law. Why do people think that judges are above reproach? Why in the world would society protect corrupt judges by penalizing lawyers who criticize them? Why do we allow those judges to operate in secret, along with the faux oversight of the Commission on Judicial Performance whose hallmark is also secrecy? 

The high and mighty set forth the shibboleth that we lowly citizens need to have respect for judges or else they cannot do their jobs. Really? They’ve got bailiffs with guns to shoot people in their courtrooms. When they rule, they can order the police to take writs of execution and empty people’s bank accounts. If people knew how judges act in the court system, they would have no respect for it. 

The corruptionism that infects the California court system is more complex than, for instance, just the act of someone handing a judge an envelope of money in exchange for a favorable ruling. Rather, it revolves around judges’ believing they are above the law. They can alter facts, conceal evidence, manufacture evidence, intimidate witnesses, and all the while be assured that no one will be able to do anything about it. When a judge writes an opinion that changes the evidence, the appellate court overlooks that falsity and pretends it is true. For example, if a judge changes the undisputed evidence that a Mrs. Jones ran the red light to a Mr. Smith ran the red light, everyone in the system will look the other way. And because of that, the public never learns that Mrs. Jones’ lawyer and the judge are fishing buddies. As the federal court said in January 2015, everyone in the state court system “turns a blind eye.” 

Commission of Judicial Performance’s passion for secrecy. 

Some naive people believe that the California Commission of Judicial Whitewashing, er, I mean, Performance, is there to protect the public from wayward judges. 

The Commission’s behavior shows that its actual mission is to protect judges rather than the public. Let’s look at the type of charges the Commission made public in 2016. Out of more than 1,200 complaints, charges were publicized against two judges and one commissioner: 

Clarke, Edmund (LA County judge) publicly rude to prospective jurors. 

Culver, Taylor (Alameda Co Commissioner) rudeness to defendants in court. 

Kreep, Gary (San Diego Co judge), public misstatements during election campaign and ten other counts. 

While everyone should consult the Commission’s webpage to make their own determination, the Commission’s primary concern seems to arise when a judge’s behavior makes the courts look bad in the public eye. Due to the Commission’s passion for secrecy, no one can gather statistics about the allegations of serious misconduct. Instead the public has to rely on the Commission’s categorization of the complaints in its annual reports. The Commission will not even divulge the number of complaints made by county.

Commission presents its scant data in deceptive manner. 

On its website, the Commission tells us that in 2016, it received 454 complaints about persons who were not California judges, but it is silent about the 1,234 complaints it received about California judges. Why highlight the number of complaints that were misdirected to the Commission and remain quiet about the real complaints? 

One has to dig into the 2016 Annual Report to find out that there were 1,234 complaints. Going through the number of complaints per year, 1,200 is about average. In 2015, there were 1,245; in 2014, there were 1,212; in 2013, there were 1,209; in 2012, there were 1,143. 

The Commission’s web page reports eleven judge removals, but when looking at the dates, it appears that those eleven comprise the total number of removals over twenty-one years -- which amounts to about half a judge per year. Reporting removals in 21-year batches conceals that fact that in the years 2009 through 2015, only one judge was removed from office. That means that with almost 11,000 complaints in the last seven years, only one judge was removed! That case involved fixing traffic tickets for family and friends (Judge Richard Stanley, Orange County January 11, 2012.) 

Types of complaints cataloged by public advocates. 

One out-of-state activist compiled a list of illicit judicial behaviors, and the list seems in line with the complaints which reform activists are compiling for California. The range of alleged misconduct is extensive, and the types of charges are similar to ones we are hearing about in California. 

Without naming any judges, the list of charges includes: (1) Ignore the Law, (2) Cite Invalid Law, (3) Ignore the Facts, (4) Ignore Issues, (5) Conceal Evidence, (6) Say Nothing in Orders (The Ninth Circuit has made this complaint about the California supreme Court in habeas corpus cases,) (6) Block Filing of Motions and Evidence, (7) Tamper with Evidence, (8) Deny Constitutional Rights, (9) Violate and Ignore the Rules of Civil Procedure, (9) Automatically Rule against Certain Classes of People, (10) Order Monetary Sanctions against Parties they want to Damage, (11) Refuse to Disqualify Themselves, (12) Violate their Oath of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct, (13) Conspire with Fellow Judges and Judicial Employees, (14) Allow Perjury, (15) Deny Hearings, (16) Dismiss Cases or Grant Summary Judgments, (17) Deny Jury Trials, (18) Don't Publish the Improper Orders. (Complied by Bill Windsor of Lawless America) 

Reform activists are complaining about substantial abuses of the law, but the Whitewash Commission never sees any of it. The reformists, however, concur with the (federal) Ninth Circuit’s January 2015 accusations, as cited in the LA Times, about the epidemic of judicially inspired misconduct.  

With a court system that tramples upon Truth, Justice and the American way with impunity, corruptionism flourishes throughout the State. The only thing these types of judges seek is a piece of the action. As we will see in future articles, judges retaliate against people who disclose their nefarious dealings by throwing them in jail under the pretext of civil contempt.   

Let’s remember that even a foolish President cannot subvert the rule of law the way a corrupt judiciary can.

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

@THE GUSS REPORT-The election cycle ended for most people back on November 8 when the president and a full slate of national, state and local votes were cast.

In LA’s spring primary when other key races and issues were decided, turnout was, as California political strategist Michael Madrid pointed out in the LA Times, abysmal regardless: “People here seem more political than in the past — they go to a lot of protests and town halls, and they fill their social media accounts with anti-GOP screeds. But less than 12% of eligible voters showed up.” 

On Tuesday, we reach the actual end of the voting cycle, which includes two LA City Council runoffs representing 13% of City Council’s voting power; Measure C, which addresses how LAPD officers may be disciplined (the LA Times’ Editorial Board opposes it); and two LA School Board seats.

Despite the likelihood of an even smaller sliver of voters showing up on Tuesday, at least one panicked person claiming to be a polling place volunteer says they will be woefully understaffed: 

“I have [only one other volunteer] with me for this election, to cover four precinct table jobs, voter roster clerk, street index clerk, ballot clerk and voting machine clerk. [And we have] three precincts instead of the usual two….The city saves $100 per clerk and $40-50 on a polling place. This is abuse by the city of me and my poll worker by under-manning the precinct this way and will cause a delayed and poorly supported voting experience for LA voters.” 

While we were not given time to confirm whether these claims are accurate, these are fair points if true. In 2014, LA City Council president Herb Wesson was so mortified by local turnout that he turned to cash prizes to boost the numbers and enhance the experience. 

Still, LA School Report’s Mike Szymanski wrote last week to not worry, “…if history is any indicator, the poll workers … will have plenty of down time.”

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a member of the Los Angeles Press Club, and has contributed to CityWatch, KFI AM-640, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Daily News, Los Angeles Magazine, Movieline Magazine, Emmy Magazine, Los Angeles Business Journal and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @TheGussReport.  Verifiable tips and story ideas can be sent to him at [email protected]. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EDUCATION POLITICS--Some of America’s most powerful corporate plutocrats want to take over the Los Angeles school system but Steve Zimmer (photo above, center), a former teacher and feisty school board member, is in their way. So they’ve hired Nick Melvoin to get rid of him. No, he’s not a hired assassin like the kind on “The Sopranos.” He’s a lawyer who the billionaires picked to defeat Zimmer.

The so-called “Independent” campaign for Melvoin — funded by big oil, big tobacco, Walmart, Enron, and other out-of-town corporations and billionaires — has included astonishingly ugly, deceptive, and false attack ads against Zimmer.

This morning (Friday) the Los Angeles Times reported that “Outside spending for Melvoin (and against Zimmer) has surpassed $4.65 million.” Why? Because he doesn’t agree with the corporatization of our public schools. Some of their donations have gone directly to Melvoin’s campaign, but much of it has been funneled through a corporate front group called the California Charter School Association.

To try to hoodwink voters, the billionaires invented another front group with the same initials as the well-respected Parent Teacher Association, but they are very different organizations. They called it the “Parent Teacher Alliance.” Pretty clever, huh? But this is not the real PTA, which does not get involved with elections. In fact, the real PTA has demanded that this special interest PAC change their name and called the billionaires’ campaign Zimmer “misleading,” “deceptive practices,” and “false advertising.”

These out-of-town billionaire-funded groups can pay for everything from phone-banks, to mailers, to television ads. Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez described the billionaires’ campaign to defeat Zimmer, which includes sending mails filled with outrageous lies about Zimmer, as “gutter politics.”

As a result, the race for the District 4 seat — which stretches from the Westside to the West San Fernando Valley — is ground zero in the battle over the corporate take-over of public education. The outcome of next Tuesday’s (May 16) election has national implications in terms of the billionaires’ battle to reconstruct public education in the corporate mold.

The contest between Melvoin and Zimmer is simple. Who should run our schools? Who knows what’s best for students? Out-of-town billionaires or parents, teachers, and community residents?

Before examining just who these corporate carpetbaggers are, let’s look at who Steve Zimmer is, what he’s accomplished, and what he stands for.

Zimmer grew up in a working class community and attended public schools. His father was a printer and his mother was a school teacher. After college, he became a teacher, beginning with Teach for America in 1992.

He spent 17 years as a teacher and counselor at Marshall High School. When he taught English as a second language, he used an experiential approach that related to his students’ daily lives. He created Marshall’s Public Service Program to make public service intrinsic to the student experience. He founded Marshall’s Multilingual Teacher Career Academy, which was an early model for LAUSD’s Career Ladder Teacher Academy.

To help address the concerns of at-risk youth, he founded the Comprehensive Student Support Center to provide health care services for students and their families. He helped create the Elysian Valley Community Services Center, a community owned-and-operated agency that provides after-school, recreational and enrichment programs, a library, and free Internet access.

He was elected to the school board in 2009 and re-elected in 2013 despite the onslaught of billionaire bucks against him.

What are some of Zimmer’s most important accomplishments on the school board?

• Improving student success. Zimmer’s leadership helped increase local graduation rates into their highest level ever. LAUSD schools achieved across-the-board improvements in state testing and all measurable forms of student achievement.
• Balanced budgets. As school board president, Zimmer helped bring LAUSD’s budget into balance while simultaneously increasing funding to the classrooms. Zimmer helped lead the fight to get Congress to pass the Education Jobs Bill passed, which provided LAUSD with $300 million. He has fought for increased federal Special Education funding. He championed Proposition 30 and its extension, Proposition 55, which added more school funding for LAUSD. His stewardship has paid off. LAUSD has been awarded the highest credit rating of AAA.
• More schools, more opportunities.As a result of Zimmer’s leadership and in response to parent interest, LAUSD has added many more magnet schools, STEM programs and dual immersion language programs.
• Restoring arts education. Zimmer worked to restore arts programs not just in some schools but in all schools. He believes access to arts education needs to be a right for all students in every community. It is an essential component to a well-rounded education. Since he’s been in office, arts funding has increased by $18 million dollars and the Arts Equity Index that he championed, now ensures resources where they are needed the most.
• Protecting vulnerable students.As a school board member, Zimmer has been the leading advocate for vulnerable students. He authored the school board resolution in support of the Dream Act, federal legislation that would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented students who do well in school and attend college. He authored the resolution ensuring schools are safe zones where students and families faced immigration enforcement actions can find safety and seek assistance and information. He helped create Student Recovery Day, a twice-yearly event that takes scores of district staff into students’ homes to support students who have dropped out. Hundreds of students have returned to class after being sought out and connected with the support services they need. He has ensured that the school district supports the needs of students living in poverty, students facing trauma, special education students, undocumented students, LGBT students, English Learners, standard English learners and foster children.
• Healthy food. Zimmer’s commitment to making sure students eat healthy meals is unparalleled. His Good Food Purchasing resolution has been a model around the country for making sure student lunches have met the highest nutritional, environmental and animal welfare standards.

As a member of the Board, and his last two years as President, Zimmer led the school district through difficult times, weathering a recession, dealing with tragedies, and transitions in leadership. He used his skills to resolve challenges by working collaboratively.

Zimmer has received numerous awards for his work with children and families, including the LA’s Commission of Children, Youth and their Families “Angel Over Los Angeles” award, El Centro Del Pueblo’s “Carino” award and the LACER Foundation’s “Jackie Goldberg Public Service Award.”

Nick Melvoin is the candidate completely sponsored by the 1 percent. His extreme lack of experience clearly doesn’t bother them. Melvoin is so devoted to the corporate agenda for our schools that he claims a “hostile takeover” is needed.

Who are some of the billionaires and corporate lobby groups that want to defeat Steve Zimmer and elect Nick Melvoin?

• Members of the Walton family(Alice Walton (photo left), Jim Walton, and Carrie Walton Penner) ― heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune from Arkansas ― have contributed $2.2 million to the PAC attacking Zimmer in the last two years. Alice Walton (net worth: $36.9 billion) lives in Texas and is one of the biggest funders behind Melvoin’s campaign. She and other members of her family also donated to the Super PAC that worked to elect Donald Trump, donated to Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, and to the Alliance for School Choice, an organization that Trump’s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos helped to lead.
• Oil and Enron executives from Texas and Oklahoma have contributed more than $1 million to the same committee.
• JOBSPAC — a PAC “largely funded by oil and tobacco companies,” according to the Los Angeles Times– contributed $35,000 to the same committee funding the attacks on Zimmer.
• Doris Fisher, co-founder of The Gap who has a net worth of $2.7 billion, has given $4.1 million to the California Charter School Association’s political action committee in 2015 and 2016. She lives in San Francisco.
• John Arnoldmade a fortune at Enron before the company collapsed, leaving its employees and stockholders in the lurch. Then he made another fortune as a hedge fund manager. His net worth is $2.9 billion. He and his wife Laura donated $1 million last year to CCSA’s political committee and $4400 directly to Melvoin. They live in Houston, Texas.
• Jeff Yass,who lives in the Philadelphia suburbs, has given the maximum allowed contribution to Melvoin. He runs the Susquahanna group, a hedge fund. He has close ties to Betsy DeVos’ efforts to privatize public school. Yass donated $2.3 million to a Super PAC supporting Rand Paul’s presidential candidacy.
• Frank Baxterand his wife Kathrine donated $100,000 to CCSA’s political committee in the past two years and $3,300 directly to Melvoin. Frank Baxter is former CEO of the global investment bank Jefferies and Company that specialized in “junk” bonds. He is a major Republican fundraiser and was appointed ambassador to Uruguay by George W. Bush. He is one of at least five donors to Melvoin’s campaign who sit on the board of charter schools. He is also a big financial backer of Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Cong. Devin Nunes of California, and Cong. Steve King of Iowa (a Tea Party favorite).

What do these corporate moguls and billionaires want and what has Zimmer done to make them so upset?

They want to turn public schools into educational Wal-marts run on the same corporate model. They want to expand charter schools that compete with each other and with public schools in an educational “market place.” (LA already has more charter schools than any other district in the country). They want to evaluate teachers and students like they evaluate new products — in this case, using the bottom-line of standardized test scores. Most teachers will tell you that over-emphasis on standardized testing turns the classroom into an assembly line, where teachers are pressured to “teach to the test,” and students are taught, robot-like, to define success as answering multiple-choice tests.

Not surprisingly, the billionaires want school employees — teachers — to do what they’re told, without having much of a voice in how their workplace functions or what is taught in the classroom. Rather than treat teachers like professionals, they view them as the out-sourced hired help.

Congresswoman Karen Bass, LA County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, LA Mayor Eric Garcetti, and Senator Bernie Sanders are among the many elected officials who have endorsed Steve Zimmer

The corporate big-wigs are part of an effort that they and the media misleadingly call “school reform.” What they’re really after is not “reform” (improving our schools for the sake of students) but “privatization” (business control of public education). They think public schools should be run like corporations, with teachers as compliant workers, students as products, and the school budget as a source of profitable contracts and subsidies for textbook companies, consultants, and others engaged in the big business of education.

Like most reasonable educators and education analysts, Zimmer has questioned the efficacy of charter schools as a panacea. When the billionaires unveiled their secret plan to put half of LAUSD students into charter schools within eight years, Zimmer led the opposition. Zimmer isn’t against all charter schools but he doesn’t want the board to rubber-stamp every charter proposal. He wants LAUSD to carefully review each charter proposal to see if its backers have a track record of success and inclusion. And he wants LAUSD to hold charters accountable. This kind of reasonable approach doesn’t sit well with the billionaires behind their front group, the California Charter School Association.

Zimmer has also questioned the over-reliance on high-stakes standardized testing as the primary tool for assessing student and teacher performance. Testing has its place but it can also become an excuse to avoid more useful and holistic ways to evaluate students and teachers — and to avoid the “teach to the test” obsession that hampers learning and creative teaching. Zimmer has called for — and helped negotiate the deal for — some portion of teacher evaluations to include test scores. But that’s not what the billionaires want.

As a former LAUSD teacher with 17 years in the classroom, Zimmer respects teachers as professionals. He understands the jobs and frustrations of teaching. He wants LAUSD to create schools that are truly partnerships between teachers, parents, students and the district. He is often allied with United Teachers Los Angeles, but he is nobody’s lapdog. He has always been an independent voice and has disagreed with UTLA on some significant matters.

In fact, four years ago, Times’ columnist Lopez wrote that Zimmer “... has tried to bridge differences among the warring parties, winning supporters and making enemies on both sides in the process.”

But the billionaires don’t want a bridge-builder. They want a compliant rubber stamp, and that’s what they’ve found in Nick Melvoin, the advocate for a “hostile takeover.”

Zimmer is endorsed by many LAUSD parents and community activists as well as Mayor Eric Garcetti, Senator Bernie Sanders, Congressmembers Karen Bass, Judy Chu and Maxine Waters, City Attorney Mike Feuer and the Councilmembers serving the neighborhoods in his 4th School Board District. At the state level, State Superintendent Tom Torlakson, Secretary of State Alex Padilla, State Controller Betty Yee, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon have all endorsed Zimmer. At the County level, he’s backed by Supervisors Hilda Solis and Sheila Kuehl along with former Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky.

In his endorsement of Zimmer, Mayor Garcetti said: “The campaign against Steve has turned vicious, and I feel compelled to reach out on behalf of a champion for all our kids. I’ve worked closely with Steve Zimmer for more than 15 years. I’ve watched him make change in the lives of kids and in the fabric of our communities. Under Steve’s leadership, Los Angeles Unified schools have shown impressive progress. Steve’s collaborative, ‘all kids, all families’ approach is what we need on the School Board.”

The Los Angeles Unified School District is the second largest school system in the country with over 700,000 students. So gaining control of its board — and its budget — is a good “investment” for the billionaires who want to reshape education in this country.

Melvoin’s campaign and backers have outspent Zimmer by a huge margin. Their battle has turned into a remarkable David vs. Goliath contest. But let’s recall who won that Biblical battle. Goliath had the big weapons but the feisty David had the slingshot. That’s how Zimmer beat another hand-picked billionaire-backed candidate four years ago, with a grassroots campaign that relied on parents, teachers, and neighborhood residents, and he’s hoping to do it again next Tuesday.

(Peter Dreier is professor of politics and chair of the Urban & Environmental Policy Department at Occidental College and an occasional contributor to CityWatch.)

-cw

BELL’S VIEW--The other day a video posted on Facebook drew my attention. In it, a motorcycle moves in slow motion toward the middle of an intersection and a certain crash with a left-turning car. I could see where this was heading, but I couldn’t look away. I have no real desire to watch a motorcyclist pinwheel through the air and crash to the pavement (he survived, thanks to his helmet), but I watched anyway.

So many events I have seen I wish I hadn’t. I’ll never get the video of the Tamir Rice shooting out of my head. And I don’t suppose I should. Maybe this destruction of our illusions – the illusion that we can prolong our innocence through looking away – is the price we have to pay to bring any real change to the world. We live in in-between times, where one person’s truth is another’s lie. How can that be possible? I’ve never completely bought the old chestnut that there are two sides to every story. Tamir Rice was a thirteen-year-old boy playing in the park. I don’t care what the grand jury said. 

Another slow-motion wreck sucking my attention these days is the continuing saga of the Joe Bray-Ali (photo above) campaign to unseat incumbent City Councilman Gil Cedillo – the 70’s B-movie villain currently ignoring his constituents in Council District 1. As anyone following the story knows, Bray-Ali either had his character assassinated or his true identity revealed last week when LAist broke the story of Bray-Ali’s former career as an Internet troll. The story prompted Bray-Ali to publicly attempt to recreate John Hurt’s chestbuster scene from the first Alien movie. He apologized, but he didn’t do it. He’s only human, but he’s not that guy. He made mistakes, but he was only trying to do the right thing.

Flailing, he revealed a few other juicy indiscretions (tax evasion, marital infidelity, and tagging, in that order) and promised to explain it all later as he blithely reassumed his campaign persona. Meanwhile, the old Joe came out swinging on a few Facebook threads, where he just couldn’t seem to help himself. In one, he trotted out a list of some of the crazy misdeeds (bigamy anyone?) of our current City Councilmembers, including Mike Bonin’s long-past meth habit.  How, one commenter asked, is Bonin’s triumph over addiction comparable to your Mr. Hyde impression on Voat?  

How indeed? One truth has emerged: Bray-Ali’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington shtick is not exactly the real thing. He’s brash, he’s bold, he’s – either – racist, sexist, and transphobic, or some kind of satirical anthropologist employing the awesome power of the n-word to move us all toward positive social change. 

The question remains whether Bray-Ali’s move-along, nothing-to-see-here approach can sweep him into the Council chambers on May 16th. A few prominent Bray-Ali supporters have jumped ship, while others have either drunk the kool-aide or just admitted they don’t care. I sympathize fully with the impulse to support the lesser of two evils. City Hall needs a shakeup. The question District1 voters have to ask themselves is: how much is too much?

Bray-Ali’s explanations have been satisfying only to the rubberneckers and the kool-aide drinkers. The pen, they say, is mightier than the sword, but, at this point, Bray-Ali needs to get hold of something sharp and cut out t he rotten bits. Words just aren’t going to do it this time. As a proponent of the power of language, I’ve never felt so adrift. Debate has evolved away from a means of challenging ideas and into a method of silencing our opponents. Shame, humiliation, degradation, and name-calling – all dressed up as free speech – work only to drive speech into hiding, oblivion, or meaninglessness. Joe Bray-Ali has seen this process from both sides – from give and take – and now he’s in the fight of his life with the beast we’ve all been feeding since the turn of the millennium.

On May 16th, the voters in District 1 have a choice – but the choice is all Joe’s at this point. He needs to find a way to the other side of the wall he’s built for himself. And he needs to do it fast.

(David Bell is a writer, attorney, former president of the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council and writes for CityWatch.)

-cw

CAPITAL & MAIN REPORT--If you’re bidding to build the border wall, the City of Los Angeles may soon want to know about it. In the latest effort by blue cities to resist President Trump’s anti-immigrant policies, a Los Angeles City Council member announced Thursday that he will introduce a motion requiring city contractors to disclose whether they’re bidding or working on Donald Trump’s border wall – or risk stiff fines and penalties. The motion is the first of its kind, but follows a trend of major cities exercising their authority to oppose the wall.

Los Angeles is home to more than 1.5 million immigrants. Voters in the county voted more than three to one for Hillary Clinton; the president’s policies remain unpopular here, and the school district and City Council have already taken other measures against the administration.

“City residents deserve to know how the City’s public funds are being spent, and whether they are supporting individuals or entities involved in the construction or operation of the Border Wall,” reads a draft of the motion, which Councilmember Gil Cedillo’s office says will be introduced Friday.

The move is being supported by a broad coalition of religious and immigrant-rights groups as well as unions, whose members include construction workers. “Every construction worker I know takes great pride in showing their children the things they built,” says Rusty Hicks, who leads the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. “None of them want to point with pride to something as horrible as a wall between two countries.”

If firms are forced to disclose any bids on the wall, advocates will then have an opportunity to put pressure on these companies — something that many businesses might rather avoid.

The city’s approach is novel, and it’s informed by the work of the Partnership for Working Families (PWF), a national network of advocacy organizations that develop city-based policy campaigns. In March, PWF sent a letter to major contractors urging them not to bid on the border wall; few companies responded. PWF has also been working with officials in individual cities to figure out how to identify contractors that are planning to bid on the wall and have existing city contracts. In Los Angeles, it’s been working closely with the LA Alliance for a New Economy, or LAANE, to get a motion off the ground.

New York City’s public advocate unveiled a plan to block border wall contractors from getting city contracts. Berkeley’s city council voted unanimously to approve a resolution that both denounces the wall and seeks to divest from any companies that are working on the project. It was the first to do so.

But Berkeley’s plan may face a legal challenge. John Yoo, a former Bush administration official who now teaches at the University of California, Berkeley Law School, told Fox Business that the resolution “may violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, which prevents cities from discriminating against outside companies, and there’s no legal exception for political disagreements.” Any ordinance that blocks corporations working on the border wall from operating in certain cities may also violate federal preemption statutes, which stipulate that when local and federal laws are in conflict, the federal standard applies.

The proposed Los Angeles ordinance seeks to circumvent these restrictions by requiring city contractors to disclose their participation in the wall rather than penalizing them. That doesn’t mean corporations bidding to work on the border wall wouldn’t file suit or otherwise protest should L.A. move forward with the ordinance. Tom Janssen, who directs external affairs for Nebraska-based Kiewit, a corporation that’s registered as an interested party to build the border wall, says the company doesn’t publicly discuss its projects. He withheld further comment pending release of the motion’s full language.

Enforcing the ordinance may also present a challenge. A wide spectrum of contractors do business with the City of Los Angeles, and keeping track of their involvement with the border wall could prove challenging. When the city council passed an anti-apartheid ordinance 30 years ago restricting contracts with companies that did business in South Africa, more than 900 ordinance exemptions were racked up in just three years. But PWF’s Jackie Cornejo, who has been coordinating efforts for various border wall ban and disclosure proposals, is confident the city’s Bureau of Contract Administration will ensure accountability. “It’s worked to keep policies like the city’s living wage in place,” she says.

Councilmember Cedillo has high hopes that the proposed ordinance will soon become law. “We will work with the City Attorney’s office to make it a reality,” says Cedillo, “and start talking with colleagues on the City Council to build consensus.”

(Aura Bogado posts at Capital and Main … where this report originated.)

-cw

DODGER BLUES-When Los Angeles Dodgers owner Walter O’Malley opened Dodger Stadium on April 10, 1962, his ticket price structure was simple, straightforward, and inexpensive: $3.50 for box seats, $2.50 for reserved seats, and $1.50 for general admission and the outfield pavilions. That was for every home game, regardless of opponent -- whether it was the hated San Francisco Giants, with whom the Dodgers were engaged in an epic pennant race that year, or the hapless expansion Houston Colt .45s. 

These prices remained the same until 1976. As late as 1997, the last full year Walter’s son Peter O’Malley owned the team before selling it to Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Group, a box seat cost $12, and you could sit in the pavilions for $6. 

In case you’re wondering, $3.50 in 1962 is the equivalent of $28 today. Good luck trying to buy a box seat at Dodger Stadium in 2017 for 28 bucks. If you want to see the Dodgers play the Giants this season from that seat location, you could be paying as much as $600 for the privilege. Present-day Dodger Stadium’s slogan might well be: “Welcome, fans. Bring money.” 

But it was not always this way. The O’Malleys’ low ticket price strategy was part of a larger business plan, centered on getting as many repeat customers into their ballpark as possible. Like Disneyland, the theme park showplace that Dodgers executives visited and studied, Dodger Stadium would feature affordable prices that would attract families, and especially women and children. Once they were through the turnstiles and “in the building,” these families would spend money on concessions --lots and lots of Dodger Dogs -- as well as all manner of Dodger logo branded souvenirs to be worn, waved, and displayed. 

Most important of all was the atmosphere inside the stadium. Beautiful views of downtown and the mountains. Organ music. Friendly and efficient park employees. Cleanliness. Safety. Fan greetings on the scoreboards. Promotions. Autograph and picture days. Not to mention Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, Maury Wills, Steve Garvey, Fernando Valenzuela, Orel Hershiser, and eight National League pennants in the stadium’s first quarter century of operation. 

Dodger Stadium was privately owned, which meant the O’Malleys bore all risks but reaped all rewards -- which also let them play the long game. If say, a six-year-old could visit the stadium with his family and have an experience that would make him want to come back again, the seeds would be planted for a lifetime of patronage and profit. “Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man,” runs the famous Jesuit aphorism, and under O’Malley ownership from 1962 to 1997, the Dodger Stadium experience epitomized it. 

This business model also served to make the stadium one of Los Angeles’ most inclusive and diverse public venues, since its affordable ticket prices drew fans from across racial, ethnic, and class lines. Club box and dugout level seating, which were class-exclusionary, represented only 3 to 4 percent of available ticketing options at Dodger Stadium in the 1960s. So if any institution in Los Angeles could be termed “democratic,” in the sense of offering the greatest good for the greatest number, it was Dodger Stadium during that time. 

No one would call Dodger Stadium democratic today. It is not designed for repeat visitors, unless they are hedge fund managers or employees fortunate enough to get their hands on the company season tickets. The team, owned by Guggenheim, a financial services consortium, has gone upscale. It has spent more on players and stadium renovations, while also charging fans much more for tickets and parking. If you’re planning to come as a family, make sure your monthly rent or mortgage payment is covered first. Even a family of four that bought the cheapest tickets in the ballpark, along with four hot dogs and four drinks, would spend $134. The same family would spend approximately $120 for the same combination at a movie theater, where parking is often free. 

The Dodger Stadium that tied a transient, race-and-class stratified city together is gone. Now, the chances that the fan in the seat next to you will be from the same social class and racial background are higher than ever. 

In a 21st-century Los Angeles rife with income stagnation, racial separation, and social alienation, we need Dodger Stadium to return to its roots. The emphasis, as it was when the O’Malleys owned the team, needs to be on families and on children. Let kids under 14 in for half price. And give families a special discount. The money lost on the front end would be a fraction of what lifelong Dodger fans would spend over the years at their favorite stadium. A democratized Dodger Stadium would not solve all of the city’s problems, but every small, good thing counts in a time like this. 

(Jerald Podair is a professor of history at Lawrence University and author of the recently published, City of Dreams: Dodger Stadium and the Birth of Modern Los Angeles (Princeton University Press). This piece originally appeared at Zocalo Public Square.

Primary Editor: Joe Mathews. Secondary Editor: Sarah Rothbard.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

-cw

PILGRIMS’ PROGRESS?-The Hollywood sign has taken on significant cultural, economic (tourism) and even mythical properties. People from around the world want their selfies with the sign in the background. I find this quite curious. In my sixty years as a Los Angeles native the sign has always been there, and it was not a big deal. It was there like the mountains, and the ocean, and palm trees. The sign was there, but it didn’t hold the mystique it does today.

As a young man exploring the Los Angeles region and taking trip to Hollywood, friends and I never thought of hiking up a canyon to get close to the sign. We would hike canyons like Topanga, Malibu, Corral Peak or Tuna. But hike to the Hollywood sign?

The sign was always there in the background. In the 1960s through the 1980s it was too many times hidden behind a blanket of smog, lessening its significance even more.

The sign did and does hold social connotations. In my youth Hollywood was going through transformations from the so-called Golden Age to a more cynical age of excess that included drink, drugs and sex parties. It was not a magnet of attraction.

Over the years the sign went into disrepair, symbolizing the disrepair and sloughing of the Hollywood image. Its most famous moments came when letters began to crumble and its name was changed by vandals. This act was a further blurring of the essence of the sign.

But now the sign is made anew and pilgrims worldwide, along with some locals, hike to the sign. Maybe some of these locals are new transplants who find a uniqueness to the sign which for us natives is just another part of growing up and living in Los Angeles, similar to the Coliseum, Dodger Stadium, freeways and Pink’s Hotdogs. They are there, it is part of the city. Yes, I see the sign, so what?

Now, with its newfound mystique, the arrival of these pilgrims overwhelmed the area. Locals living near the sign were invaded by throngs who left trash, blocked the streets with their cars, defecated and what not. That is not neighborly behavior, so they objected, understandably.

A horse stable was losing business because the pilgrims were restricting traffic.

Due to the crush of too many visitors, their disturbances and the waste and litter they left behind, the main trail for pilgrims to the sign is now gated close. They’ve been moved further away and the sign is no longer being venerated as it was. The city fathers need to find a solution to allow the pilgrims back to the sign.

The solution could be a gondola. Why a gondola?

A gondola could be shut down for safety during heavy winds, which seem to be more prevalent these days. Part of the scientific predictions concerning the consequences of global warming is more wind, so we can expect more wind storms of greater intensity.

High above the bone-dry brush, how far would ashes from a cigarette or vapor pipe fly from inside a gondola car? And once they fall to the ground how quickly would they set the land ablaze?

I’ve been to Disneyland when its gondola has broken down leaving cars stranded between stations. But Disneyland is flat, with a predictable landscape and a reliable service team always on standby.

These canyon areas do not have predictable terrain. Good luck trying to get a large ladder truck up a canyon to rescue stranded gondoliers if they are within a few feet of the road. If the stranded gondola is over open terrain away from a road, perhaps over a ravine or the cliff side of the canyon, how would they be reached? How tall would a ladder need to be to get to a gondola from the bottom of a ravine? And how quickly could rescue and repair teams get to the passengers?

Perhaps the less glamorous choice of a bus or rail would work. Why is there not now a daily service of multiple buses to take visitors up to the sign? They could start from the flatlands of Hollywood and this would save the sign’s neighbors from the crush of parked cars along the canyon. There could be a bus station with restrooms to help the keep the hillside clean. This might drive traffic to local restaurants and shops, increasing business.

These buses could be smaller in size like the DASH buses to save space on the narrow roads. There could be an environmentally sensitive, architecturally respectful bus station at the top to further aid the pilgrims.

Charging a nice fee would partially offset the costs of the buses. Have them run on clean burning natural gas, or go electric and then use these buses as prototypes to jump start a conversion of city buses to electric. 

Or go with a train. Griffith Park has the wonderfully idiosyncratic Travel Town which is an outdoor museum of sorts featuring old train locomotives, cars, and a fantastic small gauge open car train. The tracks are narrow, and they carry joyous kids and adults in a loop around the trains. Use natural gas engines or battery electric motors since electric tracks and overhead power lines could pose a danger.

The steepness of the grade of the ascent may be too great for a train, and rail beds may have to be built away from the existing road to make sure there is enough room for emergency vehicles. But it would be fun to ride a slow ascent on a little train up the canyon through the chaparral, taking in the sights and views on the way to the sign.
       
The train would be so much fun that I, a native Los Angeleno who is able to walk from my house and down the block about fifty yards to glimpse the Hollywood sign, would venture a train ride to take the pilgrimage up to see the sign myself.

(Matthew Hetz is a Los Angeles native. He is a transit rider and advocate, a composer, music instructor, and member and president and executive director of the Culver City Symphony Orchestra.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

-cw

EASTSIDER-Long before there was a Measure HHH, there was a lot of discussion at LANCC and other community meetings about what kind of shelter we could provide to our homeless population -- something to tide them over until supportive services could kick in and find longer term solutions for their complex issues. 

At the time, here was a lot of talk about sub-$30,000 “tiny homes.” Of course, almost all discussion about this concept disappeared the day after Measure HHH -- the $1.2 billion bond measure -- passed last year. 

We’ll get back to what went wrong with Measure HHH later, but for now let’s take a look at serious, inexpensive housing. Notice I did not say “affordable.” There are at least three, and probably many more, actual examples of these tiny inexpensive, quickly built and installed homes. 

From right around here in Los Angeles, a group of USC students came up with a $25,000 stackable housing pod of about 92 sq. ft. They are big enough to provide a bed, bathroom, desk and storage, and to give shelter from the elements. You can read more about the project here. 

From San Francisco, an outfit called Panoramic Interests, has come up with a business model involving larger, 160 sq. ft. “micro-apartments.” These modular housing units are also stackable, like the USC project. Currently built and shipped from China, they are designed to be leased for about $1000/year per unit. This is a whole lot cheaper than most alternatives, and there is some talk of building the units locally. For more, about their vision, look here.  

These are only two examples of numerous kinds of groovy ideas for this type of inexpensive shelters, as you can see from this article on a popular travel blog. 

So Why is the City Unable to Perform? 

All pretty words aside, the truth is there’s no money to be made (or spent) when it comes to cheap housing. No sir. Money comes from controlling what and where something is going to be built; and to pad the profit, it should be “affordable housing,” not just a place to provide shelter from the elements for the homeless. 

So one of the first things the Council did when they got the bond money was to take Controller Ron Galperin’s database of about 9000 city owned properties and trim it down into twelve parcels. 

As I wrote in an earlier CityWatch article, as soon as the bond passed, City Hall did a bait and switch to now provide “affordable housing:” 

“If you contrast the bond measure rhetoric with what the City has actually done so far, the disconnect looms like the Grand Canyon. Affordable housing is not permanent-supportive housing; it’s simply another opportunity for real estate developers to make money building more housing.” 

Even worse, as fellow CityWatch columnists Eric & Joshua Preven noted, the first meeting of the 7 member Citizens Oversight Committee (all appointed by the Mayor), was in fact a secret meeting which had a “technical glitch” and the audio recording of the meeting didn’t work. Great start to the openness and transparency promised when they begged for $1.2 billion in bonds.

In their follow-up article, they showed that the City has no intention of telling us what they are going to do with the money. 

Then we had a devastating piece by Patrick Range McDonald, showing how the Mayor and Council made nice until they were able to defeat Measure S. Then came the real deal that they had hidden: 

“The City Administrative Officer recommended, and the City Council approved, an AHOS program that now offered ‘affordable multifamily housing,’ ‘mixed-income housing,’ ‘affordable homeownership,’ ‘innovative methods of housing,’ and, finally, “permanent supportive housing” for the homeless.”  

And on May Day (May 1), the Prevens gave us a column with the heading Red Flag Warning, a nice summary of the bait and switch. The answer to the question of how many actual new units of housing for the homeless have been built is around zero. With some 9 projects in the pipeline (mostly refurbishments) for some $10 million.

Finally, in a pathetic attempt to redirect our limited attention, the City Council proudly urged that the City declare a year-round shelter crisis. The motion was made by none other than Jose Huizar (CD 14), who can’t even get anything done in Boyle Heights, and that master of saying one thing and doing something else, Mike Bonin (CD 11). 

The Takeaway 

Let’s go back to what we were told in the run up to passage of Proposition HHH. The advertised promise was for some 10,000 units of affordable permanent-supportive housing over 10 years, to the tune of $1.2 billion in bonds. 

What we’ve got is a new bureaucracy called HCID, run by a new general manager (Ray Cervantes), looking for staff and talking about $75 million in bonds to fund something like 440 units of supporting housing, with a total of 615 units. Maybe. And with no timeline. 

HCID, for the acronym challenged, stands for “Housing & Community Investment Department.” That very description should make us shudder, as we add another bureaucracy to the City that can’t balance a budget. On the other hand, they have a really spiffy website.  

This is a far cry from the promised 10,000 units of housing for the homeless and support services, and the Prevens indicate that the real number to date is around zero. If the City took a look at the pod/tiny houses mentioned at the beginning of this article, the process now would be very different. For about $30 million ($30,000 per unit) you could build 1000 units of homeless housing. And under the USC model, it could all be built here, providing jobs for local folks. 

Furthermore, at the moment the City is only looking at nine projects, using their tortured system, and there has been huge community pushback on many of their proposed sites. If you broadened the parameters and looked at all the 9000 parcels identified by Controller Galperin, I refuse to believe that the City couldn’t find places to put these mini-homes. 

Not only that, just look at the amount of money the City has blown in court battles over the police department seizing homeless people’s belongings and the costs of storing their stuff. I’m guessing millions, as referenced in a recent Curbed Los Angeles piece. With the pods, storage is already there. 

All I can say is, thank god for CityWatch and its intrepid band of investigative columnists! 

And the next time City Hall wants us to pay for a special purpose tax, listen to Jack Humphreville. Vote NO.

(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.

-cw

EDUCATION POLITICS-Why do we let Nick Melvoin’s words bounce off him and stick to LAUSD’s world? Negative Ads Undermine Democracy. Mostly, the fourth district school board race has been one of incessant negativity and lies. Why do we permit this uncivilized behavior? 

I can tell you that, walking my neighborhood, I am met with deep weariness, wariness and hostility. This is the legacy of democracy abused. This race has been nothing if not about Big Lies and electoral abuse, and that’s a lesson being bought – and paid for – dearly. 

Independent Committee expenditures (IECs, the new normal for “PAC”s) in favor of both candidates have been about the same, averaging $1.8 million dollars at the moment. Each. You read that right. Think of the children. (Think of the printers.) 

What is not similar is IC expenditures in opposition to their candidate. Melvoin’s IC devotes half an order of magnitude more in slandering Steve Zimmer than Zimmer’s IC spends to oppose Melvoin. 

Thus, quite apart from the overall total spent (which is obscene), a dramatic distinction between candidates is evident from what’s being spent to smear the other guy. Zimmer’s adherents spent less than 25% of that average in denigrating their opposition ($441K). Melvoin’s buddies sunk 140% of that average spent in support of their candidate ($2.4 million) on negative ads. 

In fact, the amount Zimmer’s IEC devoted to negative campaigning is so comparatively trivial, the negligible difference between both campaign’s positive expenditures, which is just 6% – this sum ($114K) is 25% of what Zimmer’s camp spent in negativity altogether. His challenger spent five and a half times as much as the incumbent in stuffing our mailboxes with scurrilous lies. 

So the current overall total of IECs is $6.4 million, and the electorate has responded with a resounding, “Beat It.” 

The blowback to our electoral democracy is fierce. When I try to speak with my own neighbors with whom I have worked side-by-side for over twenty years improving their neighborhood, my neighborhood, everyone’s lives, their doors stay shut. They make clear they are fortressed against hearing anything “political.” 

What they have absorbed are buzz words: “bad,” “failing,” “violent,” “drop-out,” “waste,” “fraud,” “scandal” – and on and on and on. 

What they have forgotten is that their littlest neighbors, my children, are part of that system being smeared. And I volunteer within that system improving it just like I work to improve our neighborhoods. 

My children are NOT bad, failures, violent, drop-outs, wasteful, fraudulent or scandalous. My children actually reflect wonderfully on those self-same neighbors, and likewise upon the school system, the schools and the teachers who taught them. One attends the most selective school in the country, the other strives to follow in those footsteps. We are all working tirelessly to bring our community up and forward its betterment. LAUSD has supported my children even as our family contributes to improve it. This is what democracy looks like and its integrity needs safeguarding from lassitude and confusion. 

Because that is the outcome when candidates shred their opposition and tear down community. They wound us all with their messages of negativity and hopelessness: it sticks. What’s conveyed is deep and unsettling: don’t try to pretend things are good here, that you can better your lot, that you can effect it or counter us. Reality and facts are immaterial. If you dare to counter the message, you will be buried in an avalanche of Big Lies, marginalized, and transformed into a puddle of electoral glue coated in an onslaught of slander we the people are too traumatized to withstand through reason or thought. 

This is what is Trumpian about the might of the California Charter Schools Association’s money and power in this battle for the school board. Intimidation, slander and ultimate electoral paralysis. They strive to overwhelm us with false equivalence such that even the stark consequence of ideological differences so riven as represented by these candidates, is obscured. 

Please do not let all this money win your single democratic voice. You must turn out to the polls in order to use it. This is the one and only way to assert Resistance. Then, give Steve Zimmer your vote.

(Sara Roos is a politically active resident of Mar Vista, a biostatistician, the parent of two teenaged LAUSD students and a CityWatch contributor, who blogs at redqueeninla.com) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

-cw

15 CANDLES---(Editor’s Note: It has 15 years since Los Angeles certified its first Neighborhood Council … Wilmington Neighborhood Council … in December of 2001. The ’15 Candles’ campaign celebrates the occasion, looks back at the early days and considers the future of LA’s NCs. Jerry Gaines served on the Appointed Reform Commission and remembers how it all began.) 

The City of Los Angeles experienced a renaissance in its governance structure during the last half of the 20^th Century, brought on in part by events related to the desire by parts of the 461 Square Mile city to secede from Los Angeles. Economic, social, cultural, and political forces interacted to kick start action to “break up” the entrenched power of the city’s existing government structure. 

The general belief was that the downtown government power drew economic benefits from areas such as the San Fernando Valley and the Harbor without returning desired economic growth and support in those parts of the city. The progressive history of Los Angeles led to a weak Mayor, and defused power among the City’s 15 Council Members, the City’s Controller, and the various city department heads and commissions. 

To respond to this frustration, then Mayor Richard Riordan led efforts to place an initiative to the voters via an elected 15 member Charter Reform Commission to draft and seek approval of a new City Charter aimed at addressing contentious elements of the existing city government. The then City Council responded by appointing its own 21 member Charter Reform Commission, to in effect try to blunt the impacts that could come from the Mayor’s Elected Charter Reform Commission. This author served on the Appointed Charter Reform Commission. 

The result after months of public hearings and debates held by the two dueling commissions led the respective Chairs to seek a unified Charter to present to the voters, realizing there was little chance separate work products could get majority support from the voters. This effort was successful as the voters approved the Unified Charter by over 60%. In effect the Elected Charter Reform Commission (like the House of Representatives) and the Appointed Charter Reform Commission (like the Senate) came together to craft the new Charter. 

Aside from the defining the power of the Mayor and Controller as well as oversight of the city’s department heads and commissions, efforts were made to address the grass roots frustrations between the various communities and the central government. Seven Area Planning Commissions and a Neighborhood Council System were part of the restructuring of the city governance program to craft improved interaction between the central government and the diverse communities throughout the 461 square miles of the city. 

In regard to crafting the neighborhood council system, I and other interested parties such as Greg Nelson (later a former department head of DONE), and Dr. Raphael Soneshein (Appointed Commission Executive Director) traveled to other cities to study adopted neighborhood council systems. St. Paul, Minnesota and Portland Oregon had experience with such systems. Work was then done to draft a section of the Unified Charter (Sec. 900) to build a framework for such a system. After voter approval, this led the City Council to adopt an ordinance on May 25, 2001 to set in motion the system of establishing neighborhood councils. 

Over the past fifteen years efforts have been made to evaluate and modify various elements of the neighborhood system. The intent for those of us framing the program was for local neighborhood councils to in effect simulate in concept a New England style of town hall council with a goal of each of them representing some 20,000 to 40,000 residents. They were defined as advisory (not quasi judicial, etc.) so that membership could include stakeholders from those living, working, owning property or other defined interests with a nexus to the local community. 

There have been challenges for sure, focused on relationships between the formal government oversight (DONE) and local autonomy of neighborhood councils to address diverse community interests. The framers intent was to facilitate a grass root line of communications to the formal city policy makers (elected and appointed). We included an early warning system requirement (Sec. 907) to help here. Also budget input was required (Sec. 909). And DONE was to be stand alone (Sec. 913). 

Observations on my part indicate that there has been optimism from many observers engaged with the neighborhood council system, notwithstanding challenges in city finances, specific local political polarized issues, and the learning curve for new members volunteering civic service to this aspect of LA City governance. The more recent establishment of the Leadership Academy led by the Cal State Los Angeles Pat Brown Institute (headed by Dr. Raphael Sonenshein ) is a sign of a broader effort to bring interested stakeholders into an opportunity to contribute to the betterment of local communities. The annual gathering of delegates coming together has demonstrated engaged interest in taking ownership of seeking solutions to specific community issues and learning from each other. Collaboration with trust is a way to solving civic issues, whether it is within a city block, a defined neighborhood, or the city of some four million in population.

(Jerry Gaines served on the Los Angeles City Appointed Charter Reform Commission, one of two commissions responsible for creating neighborhood councils. This is one in a series of stories and videos on Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils 15^th birthday.) Edited by Doug Epperhart.

-cw

THE COHEN COLUMN--Oh, say can you can “C” by the deception that we fight.  What so naively we hoped at the City’s last elections. Whose broad promise we bought though the methods unclear gave proof that our trust was sadly mistaken.  (With apologies to F.S. Key.) 

Julie Butcher in CityWatch gave the overall lay of the land with Charter Amendment C.  It is must reading for a fuller analysis of the issue.  

Simply put Measure C (on the LA City ballot Tuesday, May 16^th) would allow an LAPD officer, whom the Chief of Police has recommend termination, demotion or suspension, to choose whether the disciplinary hearing is to be before a Board of Rights composed of three people, two police officers (Captains or higher rank) and one civilian or, before a board of just three civilians. 

The key take-a-way is that the police officer has the choice, it is not imposed.  Which would you pick? Frankly who wouldn’t pick the board that might give a more lenient verdict? 

Julie explained: During the period from 2011 to November 2016, civilians were consistently more lenient than their sworn officer counterparts. 

In fact what we have is a wolf in civilian oversight's clothing. The LA City Legislative Analyst's study found that when the board of rights found an officer not guilty of misconduct, the civilian member always voted to acquit. 

So what’s your pick? – The civilian board, duh. 

How is Charter Amendment C present by its supporters? They insist it gives more civilian oversight even though it is at least possible that the all civilian board may never hear disciplinary case – if the [allegedly] misbehaving police officers so choose. That could happen if the board of rights was actually composed of members of the community at large and they held LAPD officers to a high standard of conduct.  

The civilians now sitting on the board come from a very restricted group, they are “…attorneys who sit on the panels for 10 and 20 years in a row.” 

Attorneys I suspect that would have a professional interest in playing good guy to LAPD cops. Just a thought. 

Why is the Los Angeles Police Protective League behind this change? Well first of all it is called the Police PROTECTIVE League not the Police ACOUNTABILITY League. It is a lobbyist for its members. 

 “The mission of the Los Angeles Police Protective League is to vigilantly protect, promote, and improve the working conditions, legal rights, compensation and benefits of Los Angeles Police Officers.” Check it out.  

OK, we can discount its bias. That is its job paid for by some 10,000 officers serving and retired. 

When wanting favorable outcome politicians seem to catch the alt-reality flu. Facts shmacks spin it and tell ‘em just what we want them to know. 

The Mayor and City Council caught it. Herb Wesson, LA City Council President claims “Amendment C increases civilian oversight … by increasing an alternative all civilian board to review police disciplinary matters.” 

We have seen that the alternative civilian board is alternative in name only. It essentially serves at the request of the accused officer. 

Where did Amendment C come from? It was birthed by the L.A. Police Protective League and nurtured by the City’s elected. 

Read Craig Lally’s, President of the LAPPL, own words. 

Why is the Mayor supporting it? Some say that “ … it’s really about a mayor who has ambitions to seek higher office doing a favor for the police union."   

More: 

 “Under heavy lobbying from the union that represents rank and file LAPD officers, the Los Angeles City Council Wednesday took the first step toward creating civilian panels that would review discipline involving cops accused of misconduct. 

The change could tip the balance in favor of officers — studies show civilians are actually more lenient with cops involved in wrongdoing than command officers.” 

What the City of Angles really need is something like what The City of Las Vegas has [believe it or not] a real citizen’s review board. L.V.M.P.D. Citizen Review Board. 

The genesis for the citizens review board as stated on their web site is: 

“In response to the 1997 fatal shooting of Daniel Mendoza by off duty Metro police officers, minority communities from the city joined in efforts to establish an independent citizen police review board with subpoena power and the authority to recommend sanctions for officer misconduct. 

The mission of the L.V.M.P.D. Citizen Review Board is to serve as an independent civilian oversight agency to review complaints of misconduct against Metro peace officers and to review internal investigations done by the L.V.M.P.D. 

The Board is composed entirely of civilian volunteers whose purpose is to make objective determinations on the merits of every case and respect the rights of both officers and complainants. 

CRB members may recommend disciplinary action, if findings show that misconduct occurred, or may recommend additional training or changes in existing policy where warranted. “ 

Las Vegas even makes it easy to apply for a seat  on the board, unlike LA

See their application.   

Clamor loudly for real civilian oversight. Vote NO on C Tuesday May 16^th. 

(Michael N. Cohen is a former board member of the Reseda Neighborhood Council, founding member of the LADWP Neighborhood Council Oversight Committee, founding member of LA Clean Sweep and occasional contributor to CityWatch.)

-cw

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-I recently saw the new documentary about Jane Jacobs, called Citizen Jane: Battle for the City. Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times praised it to the heavens, but my take is more muted. 

The film’s history of New York City in the immediate post-WW II era clearly offers some valuable lessons for LA’s endless city planning disputes. In New York the vision of Robert Moses, the City’s construction czar, prevailed through the 1960s. It was based on the top-down rebuilding of New York City inspired by the modernist vision of Swiss architect, Le Corbusier.  As applied to New York and other major cities, including Los Angeles, this approach lead to widespread urban renewal projects based on three planning principles: automobiles, freeways, and high rise buildings. In New York the new high-rise buildings took the form of public housing complexes built through well-intentioned slum clearance projects. 

This top down planning model eventually collided with the bottoms-up vision of professional writer and neighborhood activist, Jane Jacobs. Through her many articles, widely read books, and community organizing, she lead grass roots campaigns in the 1950s and 1960s that stopped several of Moses’ later rebuilding projects, most notably the Lower Manhattan Expressway. Her successes then inspired similar efforts to block new urban freeway projects and high-rise housing projects in many other U.S. and Canadian cities. 

Useful Lessons from this documentary: 

Lesson 1) Public and private projects should serve the needs of local residents and organic communities. Meeting broad public goals by destroying local communities through top-down redevelopment and transportation projects seldom works and must be opposed. 

Lesson 2) Despite the extraordinary power of elected officials and developers, the public can successfully organize to block truly awful top-down projects and replace them with their own bottoms-up vision. It is not easy, but even in Los Angeles there have been notable successes, such as the long-forgotten Beverly Hills Freeway. If built, it would have would have replaced Santa Monica Boulevard and Melrose Avenue with a new freeway linking the I-405 to the 101. First proposed in the early 1940s, official maps finally erased this freeway in 1975 after several decades of well-organized west-side opposition. 

But, despite these useful lessons, this documentary also needs some serious updating. This Jane Jacobs story stopped in the early 1970s, when most freeway and public housing construction ground to a halt. But, coincidence is not cause, and those private economic interests that supported and handsomely benefited from Robert Moses’ massive projects never threw in the towel. They quickly adapted their business models to new urban realities. Decades later, they still harbor top-down grandiose visions for rebuilding American cities, like Los Angeles, through an alliance of their companies with local officials. 

To begin, the Vietnam War, just as much as local political opposition inspired by Jane Jacobs, led to the demise of large public housing buildings and most new freeway projects. In the 1960s President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) claimed he could fight the Vietnam War without domestic cutting backs. He called his approach, “Guns and Butter.” But, LBJ was wrong. The guns won, the butter lost; and the subsequent Nixon administration unleashed public housing cutbacks that continue nearly 50 years later. 

Instead of replacing large, high-rise super-blocks of public housing with low-rise townhouses, Congress and the White House simply eliminated most public housing programs. This is why we are now left with such weak affordable housing band-aids as density bonuses, inclusionary housing, and a corrupt Federal affordable housing tax credit program.  Now in its fifth decade, the elimination of these public housing programs spawned more backroom deals, relocation to distant suburbs, inner city overcrowding, and mass homelessness. These are hardly victories that Jane Jacobs would have celebrated. 

As for freeway construction, budget constraints also killed most new projects, and now most states, like California, are struggling to maintain an Interstate Highway System begun in 1956 to defend the United States from the Russkies. No kidding! 

While a few over-priced freeway projects still squeak through, like the $1.4 billion project to widen the still gridlocked I-405 between the Santa Monica and Ventura Freeways, that big-ticket era is now over. And, at this point it will take far more than another Cold War, even with cheerleading by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow,  to reignite a second freeway building frenzy. 

But, real estate developers and their ever-faithful City Hall and State House enablers have fully reinvented themselves since the 1970s. Of course, they still hope to make piles of quick profits, but instead of government contracts to build freeways, they clamor for public works projects to build light and heavy rail. Plus, instead of “donations” to elected officials for contracts to build public housing, they have turned their attention to pay-to-play spot-zones and plan amendments for high-rise luxury housing and shopping centers. Sometimes, for good PR or an extra discretionary approval, the developers will add a few affordable apartments into the mix. But, since the pols then make sure there will never be on-site inspections of these affordable units, the developers are free to increase their rents to market rates. 

As a result, developers can still demolish old buildings and then displace local residents to make way for new tenants. The difference from the Jane Jacobs era is that their business model no longer depends on urban renewal projects, freeways, and high-rise public housing projects. They can get to the same place through piece-meal, pay-to-play soft corruption to build private, market rate developments. It is more labor intensive, but they almost always finish the race, especially when they claim (without a shred of evidence) that their real estate projects are transit-oriented. But, just like the mega-projects of the Moses-Jacobs era, the new mega-projects are still automobile-oriented despite the endless hype about transit. Whether new luxury apartments, office buildings, or shopping centers, nearly all employees, residents, and shoppers drive to these destinations, even when they happen to be near mass transit. 

Why was such important information excluded from this film? 

The documentary’s opening credits identify the film’s underwriters: The Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. Both foundations have a long, well-documented history of urban projects that selectively support handpicked activists. If they focus on community and then steer their activism away from exposes of collusion and corruption between large real estate investors and public officials, local groups apparently pass the threshold for major foundation funding. 

How did the Robert Moses approach, vilified in the documentary, appear in Los Angeles? 

Los Angeles had two famous slum clearance projects, and one actually resulted in some new, high-rise replacement housing. 

Bunker Hill, which can still be seen in many classic film noir movies set in Los Angeles, was on the western edge of the downtown. Through the Bunker Hill urban renewal project, the original Victorian houses, their residents, and some hills were removed, replaced by the Harbor Freeway and the high-rise, pedestrian-free, car-oriented hotels and banks on Flower and Figueroa Streets. But, at least the Angelus Plaza high-rise public housing complex for seniors was folded into this urban renewal project. Unlike the Moses style high-rise public housing projects that were total failures, the public housing on Bunker Hill is doing just fine after 37 years of continuous operation. Nevertheless, to avoid street level pedestrian activity, the CRA proposed an underground and elevated People Mover transit system to the tune of about $300 million. Killed by the Reagan Administration in 1981, in current dollars it would have cost over $1 billion. 

Chavez Ravine is the most infamous LA slum clearance project. Under the leadership of Frank Wilkinson, Special Assistant to the Director of the Los Angeles Housing Authority, this old Mexican-American community was supposed to make way for well-designed new public housing through a slum clearance project. Called Elysian Park Heights, the famous Austrian-American architect Richard Neutra completed detailed designs. His online renderings reveal that it would have included many two-story buildings, mid-rise residential towers, and substantial landscaping. In fact, it would have resembled another Le Corbusier-inspired residential project in Los Angeles, Park LaBrea. 

The first step met with substantial local resistance, but eventually the Los Angeles Housing Authority moved out all local residents. But, the next step, Neutra-designed public housing, never appeared. Instead, Wilkinson and other Housing Authority officials were fired because of their presumed Communist Party affiliations. Once pushed out of the way, the Los Angeles City Council quickly handed over the emptied Chavez Ravine to Walter O’Malley so he could build a stadium for the recently relocated Brooklyn Dodgers. 

Today’s reality. By 2017, slum clearance projects and new freeways have become a thing of the past in Los Angeles. Instead, the private market, in cahoots with public officials, gradually forces out low and middle income residents through a variety of gentrifying programs. These include mansionization, cash-for-key evictions, Ellis Act evictions, Small Lot Subdivisons, and deliberate negligence that makes apartments so unlivable that tenants leave on their own.

But, no matter how residents are legally or illegally evicted, the next step is similar. In-fill replacement housing caters to the well-off, while nearly all of the evicted double up, live in cars and the streets, head off to much cheaper cities, or reluctantly move to distant suburbs. If they luck out, they find affordable apartments, but they still must tolerate long commutes, strangers in lieu of neighbors, and a low-amenity environment. 

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

-cw

ON THE BUTCHER BLOCK-Charter Amendment C on LA’s citywide May 16 ballot is exactly the kind of measure that makes people cynical. This ”[n]oxious sleight of hand” was snuck onto the ballot by a quiet, unanimous vote of the City Council this past January. No deep public engagement, no hearings at the Police Commission. 

For most people, at first blush, it sounds good. How many people already voted yes just ‘cause the Mayor and the Police Union signed the ballot argument in favor of it? Smart people, engaged citizens? Duped and cynical. 

Thankfully we’ve got a good local newspaper.

From the LA Times first editorial against Measure C, Measure C pretends to be about police reform. Instead, it's a noxious sleight of hand. Vote no!  

The charter amendment would leave the selection of civilians — who is eligible, how the pool is chosen — to the City Council. Will the pool be stocked with retired police officers? We don’t know. Will it be filled by police reformers or critics from Black Lives Matter? We don’t know — although the police union seems confident that the council will craft the selection process to its satisfaction. 

That’s why, despite assertions in campaign brochures that Charter Amendment C would create a “civilian review board,” implying that it would operate like those in other cities and which reform advocates here have long sought, it would do no such thing. That’s why most reform advocates strongly oppose the measure. They see it for what it is: a sleight of hand that gives the appearance of civilian oversight while actually giving the union just what it wants. 

But the sneakiest part of the measure is the May 16 ballot itself. There are runoffs in two council districts and two school board districts, but otherwise Charter Amendment C is the only thing on the ballot, so few voters — other than those rallied by the Police Protective League and city politicians that crave the union’s support — are expected to bother. Voters can, and should, resist that cynical tactic and the ill-considered change in police discipline by voting “No.” 

And from its second editorial against the measure, Don't be fooled — Measure C is a union ploy to go soft on police misconduct:  

Over two decades, there have been many thoughtful, independent analysts who agreed with the union that the current Board of Rights system should be replaced — but who rejected all-civilian panels. The Rampart Independent Review Panel, for example, urged the city to limit the Board of Rights to fact-finding — did the officer truly commit misconduct? — and leave actual punishment decisions to the chief, who would have to follow guidelines adopted by the Police Commission. 

Other proposals have included making the Police Commission itself a true civilian review board by allowing it to make discipline decisions. These and other suggested reforms are well considered and should be among the options presented to voters or the council. 

They are not on the May 16 ballot, because Charter Amendment C is not one of those thoughtful proposals that an independent panel arrived at following a process of interviews, testimony and study. It is the result of private talks between top city officials and the Police Protective League. Union leaders surely see the advantage to their members of being able to choose among differently formatted Boards of Rights. If some future council changes the criteria for selecting civilian members to make them tougher on accused officers, those officers would still be able to select a board without a civilian majority. 

It’s not as though the Boards of Rights are inordinately tough on officers. They reject more than half of the chief’s requests for discipline. 

Police officers have a constitutional right not to be fired or otherwise punished on a whim or out of personal animus or political pressure. They are entitled to an appeals system that offers due process, and they ought to have a system they perceive to be fair. What they will get, if Charter Amendment C passes, is an unwarranted choice of arbiters and a chance to further undermine the chief’s ability to run his department, as well as the public’s ability to hold him accountable. Voters should say no to Charter Amendment C. 

How did this happen? Politicians snuck it on the ballot in the last off-year election LA will see? Oh my, cynical me! But look! There are still investigative reporters at the LA Times, A 'backroom deal'? Groups that pushd crackdown on police misconduct were left out of talks between Garcetti and the LAPD union (I love The Palms! Do they still have those amazing pickled tomatoes?): 

…those groups — and the larger public — were effectively locked out as Garcetti and the LAPD’s rank-and-file officers union worked on an overhaul of the department’s disciplinary system, interviews and city records obtained by The Times show. Those talks, launched roughly two years ago, led to the creation of Charter Amendment C, which would introduce one of the most significant changes to the LAPD’s disciplinary process in decades. 

Those same groups are now campaigning against the May 16 ballot measure, which would allow police disciplinary panels, also known as Boards of Rights, to be composed entirely of civilians. Foes warn the measure will make the panels more lenient toward officers, pointing to a city report that concluded civilians have been voting for less severe punishment. 

At this late date, our local press is paying attention. Decent analysis, for instance, from Los Angeles Magazine, May 8: If You Care About Police Oversight, You Need to Vote on May 16:

Believe it or not, May 16 marks yet another local election. With so few items on the ballot, it’s tempting to sit this one out—especially if you’re not in a district with a city council run-off, or if you’re not up on the latest school board elections. For many Angelenos there’s only one thing to even vote on—a little-discussed Charter Amendment that, at first glance, seems like a good thing. (Civilian oversight! Police being held accountable for misconduct! Who could argue with that?) But here’s why you should still show up on May 16—and why you should vote “No” on C. 

And KPCC’s Frank Stoltze offers an excellent summary and analysis of the measure (as usual!) LA's Measure C upends politics around police discipline:  

Concerned that all-civilian panels would be too soft on misbehaving cops, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, civil rights attorney Connie Rice and Black Lives Matter leader Melina Abdullah have all lined up against Measure C. 

"Charter Amendment C is the wolf in civilian oversight's clothing," said Abdullah. "I think it’ s really about a mayor who has ambitions to seek higher office doing a favor for the police union." 

Jason McGahan writes on the measure for the LA Weekly: Will Measure C Make It Easier for Misbehaving Cops to Go Unpunished?  

LAist summarizes the opposition organizing against Measure C: Why The L.A. Times, The ACLU, And Black Lives Matter Oppose Measure C.  

Rabbi Aryeh Cohen in the April 28 Jewish Journal, Oppose Charter Amendment C—and strengthen democracy, explains why the process of getting Measure C to the ballot is as bad as the substance of the ill-conceived change:

“Beyond the fact that this amendment is bad for the residents of the city, the process is bad for democracy. In order for there to be a robust democratic conversation about the issues that impact our city, the residents of the city need to be convinced that the conversation matters, that things can change for the better. If instead of this, the ballot process is used in an underhanded and disingenuous way people—who in any event are working really hard to support themselves and their families, and do not have an abundance of leisure time—will be dissuaded from taking part in the process. Turnout for special elections is already low. We need to defeat this spurious measure so that special elections are no longer used to pass measures that otherwise would be debated and defeated.” 

Rosemary Jenkins opposes the measure in Dick & Sharon's LA Progressive:  

“I urge a No vote when you go to the polls this May. All officers must be held accountable for their actions–for all their actions–the good, the bad, the ugly, and the unforgiveable–but let us make certain that the procedures are objective and fair to all and are not tilted toward one or the other side of the scales of justice. We must never be guilty of being party to a low-voter turn-out. Each vote does count, and we must make ours not only count but be cast as an enlightened act. In the end, it is better to vote on what you know than guess about something about which you have little understanding. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us to be part of an informed electorate.” 

And from the Los Angeles Community Action Network (LA CAN): 

The Los Angeles Community Action Network (LA CAN) and over 75 other local organizations from across LA urge all voters to vote NO on Charter Amendment C on May 16. 

If passed, Charter Amendment C would actually give LAPD officers already found guilty of misconduct a way to avoid discipline and punishment. It is a intentionally misleading ballot measure that was created and is being funded by the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the LAPD police union. Why would the LAPD union want more “accountability” and “civilian oversight”? Simple: They don’t. 

This measure is NOT about accountability. It will actually make LA more unsafe by giving officers ALREADY FOUND GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT more options to avoid punishment – putting these guilty officers back on our streets and in our communities. 

Charter Amendment C is NO about “civilian” oversight. According to the measure, a “civilian” must have years of mediation and arbitration experience. Also, there are only 38 of these “civilians” currently allowed to serve on the Board of Rights panel – and the majority of them have been in this group for over 9 years. Does these people sound like your neighbors, family members, or friends? 

Charter Amendment C is NOT about accountability or oversight. It is about guilty cops getting out of discipline. Vote #NoOnC on May 16!

(Julie Butcher writes for CityWatch and is a retired union leader now enjoying her new La Crescenta home and her first grandchild. She can be reached at [email protected] or on her new blog ‘The Butcher Shop - No Bones about It.’) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

-cw

RANTZ AND RAVEZ-The Homeless situation in Los Angeles is getting worse each and every day. More and more people are living on the streets of LA and local government officials are doing little other than talk and raise taxes and fees to address the situation. 

In the areas surrounding LA City Hall, all over downtown, along the Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley and on the streets of Hollywood, Central LA, and in the West and South LA areas, the situation continues to worsen. Many people, including young students, are forced to walk to school stumbling over the homeless with their collection of various items lying on sidewalks. They are sleeping on bus benches and generally flopping anywhere and everywhere they choose to plant themselves on private and public property.

It is not that I am heartless and don’t care about my fellow human beings. For whatever reason -- be it drugs or mental illness or a number of other factors -- homelessness has become a lifestyle for many people living on the streets. It is totally out of control and not reducing in numbers. 

Throwing money at the problem has not worked; the newly established bond measure to build 10,000 residential units -- supported by an increase in the property tax -- is not going to improve things. No community wants the homeless in its neighborhood. Additionally, the ¼ cent sales tax to assist the homeless, voted into law in the County of Los Angeles, is not going to do much to rectify the situation either. How can it have any impact when a select group of 50 people are attempting to find ways to spend the money that will be generated by the new tax? Imagine how 50 people working together are going to establish any solution as to how to spend the money. Just look at our City Council and you can see how elected officials find ways to spend money yet not improve the quality of life in our city.      

I have been a board member of the rescue shelter Hope of the Valley for the past number of years. This organization deals with the homeless in the greater San Fernando Valley by providing a number of services and locations with beds for those left out in the streets. From hospital dumping of patients on the streets to those down on their luck, Hope of the Valley is constantly struggling to find the funds to keep operating in the San Fernando Valley. 

There is also the LA Mission, the Union Rescue Mission, the Fred Jordan mission and a number of other organizations designed to provide food, clothing and shelter to the homeless in and around Los Angeles. Some even help families and children. Unlike years ago when there were mostly homeless men confined to the Skid Row area in downtown LA, the situation has changed with growing numbers of women with children living homeless on the streets and various communities throughout LA.

Missions and existing shelters are all in need of funds to continue to operate and provide services to those in need. I have a novel idea. Why don’t the bureaucrats handling the additional tax revenues provide sufficient funds to the established facilities that are struggling for dollars? This will help them continue providing the valuable services to the homeless. Now, is that such a novel approach to begin and address the growing homeless population in Los Angeles? 

Gordon Murley should be remembered for all the passion and dedication he displayed for the South West San Fernando Valley and, in particular, Woodland Hills.  

With the death of Gordon Murley a few months ago, there are those in the Woodland Hills community who want to remember all the good work he did for the community for many years. From community meetings to development to being a protector of neighborhoods, Gordon was there year after year speaking, arguing and supporting community pride and success in any and all developments. When Gordon did not like a project, he would gather his posse together and fight to make sure it became a benefit for the community and not just another building occupying space. 

Love, commitment and dedication to the community are what Gordon was all about. There are those in the community who want to name a monument or facility in Gordon’s memory. Johnny Walker, a friend, local resident and community organizer is gaining support from various organizations in Woodland Hills to name the currently under construction Shoup Park in honor of Gordon. 

I will be the first to admit that naming a city facility in particular a park in honor of Gordon is most appropriate. The tribute is an honor and I am sure Gordon’s family and friends will appreciate it. While I appropriated the funds to renovate the park when I was the councilman for the district, the current councilman, Councilman Bob Blumenfield will have to approve naming the park in honor of Gordon. I know that he and his staff worked with Gordon during the past years on various developments in the council district. 

Gordon was the president of the Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization, Founder of the Woodland Hills-Warner Center Neighborhood Council, South Valley Planning Commissioner and a proud Military Veteran. A man of distinction, commitment and honor deserves a community facility or a monument in his name. 

Happy Mother’s Day to all Moms 

I would like to wish all Mothers a Happy Mother’s Day. While my Mom passed several years ago, I remember the good times we shared with my Mom, Alice, and the family over the years. Show love and appreciation to your Mom, Grandmother and Godmother on Mother’s Day and every day. As we age, we come to appreciate more and more what our Moms do and have done to frame, encourage and strengthen our lives. As I remember and pray for my Mom, I urge you to demonstrate your love and appreciation for the Moms in your family. Will it be roses or candy or jewelry for her? 

Whatever it is make sure it is delivered with lots of love and appreciation.     

I welcome your thoughts and comments at [email protected].

(Dennis P. Zine is a retired LAPD Sergeant, Former Elected Charter Reform Commissioner, Retired Los Angeles City Councilman; and the current Honorary Mayor of Woodland Hills and General Manager of Bell Canyon’s Community Services District in Ventura County.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

-cw

ALPERN AT LARGE--As the proud parent of two wonderful LAUSD students, and as someone who has pushed for numerous spending motions on local students within the boundaries of the Mar Vista Community Council, and as a proud Boy Scout dad (and former Eagle Scout), I am joining the ranks of so many Angelenos who are fed up by an out of touch LAUSD Board and administration. 

You guys at the top really are the worst--and the more we (the taxpayers) feed you, the more out of touch and self-absorbed you become. 

Lots of money in these school board races, right? 

It is very difficult to proclaim that the charter school champions (Funded by billionaires, I tell you! BILLIONAIRES!) are awful candidates when the education unions fund THEIR champions. 

Frankly, why the devil would anyone trust either group, when it appears to be all about the money? 

Seriously, what would happen if the "for profit" charter systems and the "for profit" education unions were put on a results-only, strict diet that had their operations "graded" by the parents and recent graduates of our public school system? 

But I live in the real world--charter schools may be where I lean--no, I don't think Eli Broad is a bad guy, and the parents voting with their feet to flood the charter schools can't keep being ignored by the disgusting UTLA--but the stories of charter school abuse can't be ignored, either. 

And the money train isn't going away, either... at least for the time being. 

In the Westside, I think there is a tough decision between two overall fine candidates:  both Nick Melvoin and Steve Zimmer are two honorable men who would do well by their constituents. 

So long as the constituents that get top billing are the students and their parents. 

And in this world of diversion--as in let's talk non-stop about how much we hate Donald Trump and Betsy DeVos while we locally slam one stiletto after another between the ribs of the taxpayers and helpless students--there are so many issues to be addressed: 

1) Common Core is hated by liberals and conservatives alike. 

2) The bait-and-switch of extending and then contracting the 2017 summer break on the part of the LAUSD school board is hated by liberals and conservatives alike. 

3) The lack of vocational training for students who should be taught a vital and necessary skill is hated by liberals and conservatives alike. 

4) The misappropriation of K-12 funds, and the lack of budgetary control and new UC/Cal State university construction, is hated by liberals and conservatives alike. 

5) The out of control need to take Advanced Placement courses aplenty while not allowing students to test out of high school at an early age, and proceed to local junior colleges, is hated by liberals and conservatives alike. 

And so it goes.  Trump and DeVos are worthy of all sorts of criticism, but that has nothing to do with the fact that there are armies of miserable and victimized students and their parents, as well as sincere and underpaid teachers, who are held down by the figurative and collective boot of California education lobbies--a boot that will not stop stepping on their victims' figurative and collective neck. 

My patients (and I see them virtually every day, now!) who are leaving this state to achieve not only a more affordable cost of living but a chance to achieve an affordable college education for their children, can't all be crazy. 

The majority of high school-aged students' families pursuing public school education that is affordable, but also independent of UTLA and many LAUSD constraints, can't all be crazy. 

And those liberal and conservative education reformers can't all be crazy, either. 

Really, you "education gurus".  You, really, REALLY are the worst.

(Kenneth S. Alpern, M.D. is a dermatologist who has served in clinics in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties. He is also a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He was co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and chaired the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Dr. Alpern.)

-cw

TRANSIT WATCH--Enough of the agendas! We're already hearing talk of Measure M local funds to the City of Los Angeles being diverted away from potholes, and the new voter-approved homeless funds are potentially up for grabs to be spent in non-transparent, concerning directions.  At the city, county and state levels, we're seeing taxpayer funds treated like private/political funds. 

Overall, Metro's "agenda" is smart and balanced...but the staff can only be directed by its political boardmembers, who've perhaps gotten the wrong idea about what the passage of Measure M meant. 

The Metro Board needs to know they did NOT get a blank check, nor an excuse to close their ears and eyes to those too busy working and taking care of their families to attend meetings.  

And while there are very good things Metro is working on, the choice of a bikeway to connect regions of South L.A. to the L.A. River is about as "smart" as the decision to create an Orange Line Busway instead of holding out for a light rail line. 

Because a do-over is much worse, and much more expensive, than doing it right the first time.

And just as the San Fernando Valley (and Metro will pay big bucks for not spending smart on their publicly-owned rail rights of way to create an Orange Line light rail to connect Warner Center with the Gold Line in Pasadena, the greater part of the L.A. County will suffer if we do a feel-good bikeway instead of a light rail line on the Harbor Subdivision Right of Way: 

1) The Eastside will lose a direct rail path connecting the jobs-rich LAX region with their communities. 

2) The opportunity of a regional rail network to serve the Arts District, the southeast portion of the Downtown region, southeastern L.A. County and the San Gabriel Valley will have a long and circuitous route to access LAX. 

3) Opportunities to revitalize South L.A. and create a flurry of middle-class, affordable housing, and an associated network of parks and bikeways will be greatly harmed. 

4) Commuters from LAX accessing Downtown will discover they're being "taken on a ride" up Crenshaw Blvd., with a forced change of trains at Crenshaw/Exposition, thereby harming our developing global economy and our growing tourism economy. 

5) We will lose out on a vital chance to focus on a "Second Downtown Light Rail Connector" to tie the Green, Crenshaw, Blue, and Gold Lines together on a publicly-owned right of way that's as vital as was the Expo Line right of way.   

And this will all come crashing down on the short-sighted, agenda-driven Metro Board between now and 2022, when all the good work to connect LAX and Metro Rail will suffer a horrible public relations black eye because Downtown and LAX weren't directly connected. 

The Crenshaw/LAX light rail line reaches its truest, fullest potential when it is extended northwards to the Wilshire Purple Line Subway and beyond (with a projected ridership of over 100,000 per day of commuters between LAX and the Wilshire Blvd. commercial corridor ...

... but that should NOT preclude a direct LAX-Downtown commute for rail commuters and with an adjacent bikeway and parkway, to boot. 

Like it or not, the Expo Bikeway, which I fiercely fought for and still am infuriated to not see completed through Cheviot Hills, did have to take a "backseat" to the Expo Light Rail Line. 

So the "suggestion" or "promise" that the Bikeway will not preclude a future light rail line won't hold water. 

And if no widened right of way is purchased right NOW, there will be a growing call before and during 2022, when the Metro Rail/LAX connection should be completed, with the following message: 

What the hell were we thinking when we failed to build a direct LAX to Southeastern and Eastern LA and Union Station when we had the chance?

(Kenneth S. Alpern, M.D. is a dermatologist who has served in clinics in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties. He is also a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He was co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and chaired the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Dr. Alpern.)

-cw

SKID ROW- Last week, an Election Challenge Review Panel agreed with all three election challenges officially filed by the Skid Row Neighborhood Council- Formation Committee. The challenges were filed as the result of a cheating scandal connected to a front organization that attempted to thwart Skid Row’s efforts to create it’s own neighborhood council. 

In the first-ever subdivision election in the history of the City of Los Angeles, Skid Row’s efforts to break away from the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council (DLANC) fell short by only a mere 60 votes (nearly 1600 people participated in the election). However, an anonymous source uncovered a plot to deceive potential voters through e-mail blasts that went out as much as four times a day with the DLANC logo and a message of “Vote NO on Skid Row separation”. 

City regulations deem these acts illegal if issued by a neighborhood council. Skid Row NC leaders claimed they had proof (including video) which show the e-mail URL’s and contact info such as mailing addresses connecting back to DLANC. While DLANC denied any involvement, the video and other evidence was presented before a three-member review panel made up of NC leaders from various communities across Los Angeles. 

The 5-hour hearing ended with the review panel siding with Skid Row over Downtown LA NC. 

The panel recommended the City’s Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) immediately initiated an investigation to conclude in 60 days and if it could be determined that DLANC played even more of a role than they denied, Skid Row should automatically get it’s NC. If not, a new election without online voting should happen 30 days after the conclusion of said investigation. 

The reality is, though, that the review panel’s recommendations are only that- recommendations. The final determination is up to DONE. They have not given any clues as to what their decision might be. 

On their website, it says there are 5 penalty options; 1) A Letter of Reprimand (which seems too thin to be appropriate in this matter), 2) Disqualification of Candidate (in this case, that would be DLANC and would also automatically give Skid Row it’s NC), 3) Disqualification of Votes (with such a small margin of only 60 votes, even a 5% vote reduction of No votes would give Skid Row the victory, due to the need to multiply by 3 [amount of challenges]), 4) Funding penalties (more than likely not applicable) and 5) Referral to City Attorney’s office for Criminal Prosecution (definitely a possibility depending on the outcome of the City’s investigation over the next 60 days) 

Most importantly, the website clearly states that “Redoing the entire NC election IS NOT a remedy” and goes on to say “unless the challenge affected every seat on the ballot”. 

The Skid Row Neighborhood Council- Formation Committee contends that all of it’s challenges only apply to the “No votes” and therefore eliminate any possibilities of a new election. 

So the Review Panel recommended a new election without online voting and Skid Row says a new election is not a valid option. 

“What will DONE say?” is the biggest question of 2017 in Downtown LA. 

The legal teams are already being assembled on both sides. The bylaws, boundaries and board seats aren’t even a concern at the moment. 

Even Tupac says “All eyes are on DONE”. I think I even heard Edgar Allen Poe say “All eyes are upon DONE”. No matter what your verbal vernacular, DONE is on the hot seat. 

Either the right side of history will embrace the inclusion of Skid Row’s remarkable efforts to create a neighborhood council from which the necessary solutions can be created to greatly improve the area, or the wrong side of history will embrace the uber-rich developers who continue to conspire to keep things just the way they are so that they can buy up all the land at as low a price possible, only to significantly increase rents, and thus their profits, once Skid Row is no longer able to provide the limited protection of rent control to Downtowners. 

Of course, there are other factors in play as well, but that’s another article. 

The laws, regulations, guidelines, evidence videos, official statements on video and even DONE’s website all point to Skid Row getting it’s neighborhood council. 

But, it is DONE who has the final say.

What say you, DONE?

GELFAND’S WORLD--Bernie Sanders says we need a revolution in American politics. He made a strong case for this argument as he slammed the opposition Republican Party in a speech he gave to approximately 2000 people on Sunday. 

The curious viewer might ask some of the following questions: What does it mean to have a revolution in American politics? What aspects of the current system should we be revolting against, and what should we replace them with? 

We do have a start on recognizing the problem. Most of us feel that there is something seriously wrong with the system and that changes need to be made, but we are not entirely sure of the diagnosis. Lacking agreement over the diagnosis, we are at somewhat of a loss to prescribe the proper remedy. 

Bernie Sanders thinks he has the diagnosis and speaks with assurance. 

On Sunday, he spoke to a near-capacity crowd at the Saban Theater on Wilshire in an event sponsored by Writers Bloc.  He raised several themes, the most important being the descent of the American political system into oligarchy. A few wealthy, powerful families control a large part of the nation's wealth. As Sanders remarked, "You now have billionaire control over our political system." 

As Sanders explained, the oligarchy has been pushed by billionaires investing money in the political system, gaining even more power through the disastrous Citizens United case. He also mentioned the actions of governors -- Sanders referred to them as "cowards" -- who have gone along with voter suppression efforts. 

The result of this control is the series of terrible bills and bad votes that we have been seeing in the Republican controlled congress. The targets range from health care funding to every other imaginable social welfare program, whether it be school lunches, meals on wheels, or Medicaid. There isn't much room for such luxuries if government revenue is to be cut dramatically. And obscene spending cuts are what become necessary if you plan to cut taxes on the wealthy as dramatically as has been proposed. 

It's not just income taxes, either. 

Sanders warned that the Republican plan to abolish estate taxes would benefit the top 0.2% of the people to the tune of $353 billion. He pointed out that the family that owns Walmart would benefit by $50 billion, the Koch brothers' family by $30 billion, and even the Trump family by $4 billion. 

He spoke of the Republican's health care bill as not really a healthcare bill so much as it is a bill that cuts taxes on the richest Americans. He called it "one of the most disgusting pieces of legislation," a remark that drew prolonged applause. 

In a related remark, Sanders pointed out, "One of the unique problems we have with the Trump presidency is that he lies every day." It's hard to carry on an intelligent, honest debate when only one side is being honest. 

Still, Sanders was not entirely unsympathetic to Trump voters. He asked the audience to recognize that as much as we opposed those votes, we should also understand that there is a lot of hurt and pain among the American people. The middle class is shrinking, and people find themselves working for much lower wages than they expected. What then should we do about all these problems? 

In answering this question, he was not kind to his closest colleagues, the leaders of the Democratic Party. He blames them for a lot of the electoral failure that we just endured. 

What are the problems with the Democratic Party that need fixing? This raises the central question: What do we want the Democratic Party to be? 

Sanders spoke of the model of the Democratic Party being broken. Briefly, it's too top-down and not enough grass roots. The party needs to be opened up and transformed so that it will gain voters it should have kept. "You can't do that unless you have an agenda that means something to ordinary Americans." 

I would guess that a large fraction of the audience were Democrats, but the message was received without a murmur of dissatisfaction from the crowd. Indeed, there were a few who obviously agreed strongly, including one who shouted, "Bernie, the DNC rigged the election." Most of the audience did not appear to be willing to go that far, but there did seem to be strong agreement that the Democratic Party needs to be fixed. We might take note of the fact that Sanders supporters have created their own reform movement among the California Democratic Party, suggesting a real (and demonstrably grass roots) movement among lower level activists. 

(As an aside, I would tend to agree based on personal experience as a one-time party volunteer and activist. At that time, I noticed that the higher-ups didn't exactly care what I thought or said. Rather, the organization had a very top-down feel to it. Leaders would appear at the local club and announce that the key words that year would be vote by mail or some such. We were supposed to be loyal to the leadership rather than reformist thinkers. The system worked for insider organizations because they knew what they wanted, but political reform was not a priority for those who already had a great deal of power within the system. It's hard to be a loyal activist within an organization that expects you to swear undying fealty to Paul Carpenter.) 

Sanders seconded the standard Democratic Party message that global warming is real and is already doing harm. He spoke about the need to fight the fossil fuel industry and convert our energy production to sustainable methods such as solar, wind, and geothermal. He wasn't big on the details, but the crowd loved it. Despite his earlier demands for guts and courage in taking on vested interests, he failed to take on the vested interest within the left of opposing nuclear power. If you really accept the fact that global warming is our biggest current challenge (as I do) then you ought to look at the plusses as well as the minuses of a legitimate alternative to coal. He also failed to mention the human population explosion, in spite of the fact that the discussion was on everyone's lips when he was young. Bernie, the problem hasn't gotten better. 

Sanders seconded standard Democratic Party themes including support for immigration reform including a path to citizenship: "Our diversity makes us strong." 

He got a standing ovation for his promise to introduce a bill to create Medicare for All: "Every other country guarantees healthcare to their people as a right." You might say that this issue defines the gulf between the Democratic left and the conservative right wing. On a personal note, might I suggest that the idea of healthcare as a right should be one of those big truths I wrote about in a previous column. 

He also spoke about legislation to raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour. Curiously, he waited until fifty minutes into his speech to mention unions. But when he did, he reminded the audience that unions have been the driving force behind many of the improvements that we now enjoy. He failed to explain how we can resurrect union power, considering that much of the loss of union influence and membership goes back to bad legislation passed by the congress in the 1940s. Why not add repeal of union-busting legislation to your wish list? 

Sanders spoke to the feelings of fear and anger that many of us feel. Taking a page from Tim Snyder and others, he said, "Despair is not an option." It's a difficult message to accept, but perhaps it's the most important one that we heard on Sunday. 

Bernie Sanders is on tour for his new book Our Revolution. This was not intended as a book report because it's just out, but we may speak of it in the future. We may also take up Sanders themes such as the need for full public financing of elections, a position that has been supported by at least some of our local neighborhood councils for more than a decade.

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

-cw

WHERE YOUR MONEY GOES--Three Los Angeles city firefighters earned a combined $1.36 million last year — $974,779 of which came from overtime pay alone, according to just-released 2016 salary data from TransparentCalifornia.com.

The trio was able to boost their earnings so dramatically as a result of having received the three largest overtime payouts of the more than 550,000 workers surveyed statewide: 

1. Fire captain Charles Ferrari received $334,655 in OT, with total earnings of $469,198.
2. Fire captain James Vlach received $332,583 in OT, with total earnings of $469,158.
3. Firefighter Donn Thompson received $307,542 in OT, with total earnings of $424,913.

Remarkably, this is the trio’s 2^nd year in a row as the state’s top overtime earners, having also topped the of the more than 2.4 million government workers surveyed in 2015.

Thompson earns $1.23M over 3 years

Thompson’s overtime pay was at least the 3^rd highest of the more than 2 million public workers surveyed in each of the past three years, boosting his total earnings to $1,229,504. 

Six-figure OT payouts at the LAFD up 760%

Over the past five years, the number of Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) workers who earned at least $100,000 in overtime pay increased by 760 percent, rising from 51 in 2012 to an all-time high of 439 last year.

By comparison, there was only one fire employee in the entire state of Nevada who earned over $100,000 in overtime pay last year, according to TransparentNevada.com. 

LAFD’s OT at national-high levels

At $197 million, overtime pay accounted for 31 percent of LAFD’s total budget for the 2016 fiscal year. This dwarfs the rate of other major fire departments like New York (19%), Orange County (12%), San Diego (12%), Houston (5%) and Phoenix (3%).

In response, Transparent California research director Robert Fellner stated:

“The issue is not a lack of solutions. Those have been forthcoming from a coalition of experts, including those from LAFD’s own ranks, for decades. The issue is lack of a political will for the precise reasons an official outlined nearly two decades ago: fear of political retaliation.”

Transparent California’s full report on overtime pay at the LAFD can be found here. 

Port Pilots earn over $500k

The three highest-compensated Los Angeles city employees were:

1. Chief port pilot II Michael Rubino, who earned: $582,734.
2. Port pilot II John Betz, who earned: $501,907.
3. Chief port pilot II John Dwyer, who earned: $488,607.

To view a more detailed version of this release, please click here.

(Transparent California is California’s largest and most comprehensive database of public sector compensation and is a project of the Nevada Policy Research Institute, a nonpartisan, free-market think tank. Learn more at TransparentCalifornia.com.) 

-cw