LOS ANGELES

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

ANIMAL WATCH-On May 3, the Los Angeles City Council reaffirmed its intention to make Los Angeles a “no kill” city, meaning 90% of all adoptable animals would leave the shelter alive. Where they go after that is not of particular concern, as evidenced by the lack of monitoring of rescues nationwide and the inability to follow the destination of animals that are transported freely across the country and to Canada, and often relocated numerous times. 

While responsible rescues are vital to Los Angeles, we wonder if local politicians watched the revealing investigative report, Some So-Called Nonprofit Pet Rescues May Not Really Be Charities, by David Goldstein of CBS News. Goldstein attempted to interview the owner of Saving Spot Rescue, an alleged 501(c)3 dog rescue in Los Angeles, which claims to be non-profit but was found to not be in good standing either with the IRS or the CA Attorney General. 

CITY COUNCIL CLUELESS ABOUT LA'S 'ALMOST' SUCCESS 

Los Angeles Councilman Paul Koretz’ representative discussed the City's "no kill" achievement with KABC, stating, “We enacted several policies that will get us there. It’s not going to happen overnight but we increased funding to spay and neuter, that was a big part of it.” 

What he didn’t say, or may not have known, was that as of March 31, 2016, LA Animal Services GM Brenda Barnette had an unspent balance of $5,004,395.66 in the Animal Services Pet Sterilization Trust Fund and had to be instructed by the Commission to increase her spay/neuter efforts. Barnette admitted that an additional 2016-2017 annual contribution by the Council was canceled because of her high reserve. 

“We try to make it as reasonable as possible for people to adopt,” Councilman Paul Koretz (who claims he had 19 cats as a child) told KPCC. He did not admit that an ASPCA grant funded "free" cat adoptions, and discounted LA Animal Services' dog and cat adoption fees to $20.17 from December 27 through December 31, 2016. And he ignored that Best Friends is adopting out kittens, cats and dogs for the Cinco de Mayo weekend for $5 each. 

While “cheap” or “free” adoptions may empty shelters and lower euthanasia stats, what happens if that animal needs expensive veterinary care, special food, or training and the adopter merely wanted a freebie or bargain-basement special? Isn't it also the duty of a shelter to assure the adoption of a helpless animal is considered a serious investment and long-term responsibility--not just a trial run? 

The issue of owner responsibility, along with their failure to insure law enforcement as one of the obvious causes of stray and homeless animal problems, seems to allude Los Angeles officials.

WHAT IS THE OFFICIAL ‘NO-KILL’ RATE? 

For more than five years we have heard that LA Animal Services was quickly climbing to the coveted 90% live-save rate called, "no kill." However, under the Best Friends' Policy and Statements, it seems it is not quite that simple. 

After stating that a benchmark is important, Best Friends affirms, "Generally, the no-kill threshold for a community is considered to be 90 percent." 

But, the next paragraph states: "It is important to note that a 90 percent save rate is not necessarily defined as no-kill. This is because a community with a 90 percent save rate could still be killing animals who are not cases of true euthanasia. It is also possible that…a given community may achieve no-kill even if the save rate isn’t 90 percent." 

So, perhaps the formula explained in a March 13, 2017 Best Friends' media release will help us better understand the method of computation:

LA Animal Services reported an 86.6 percent live release rate from July through December 2016 (the fiscal year to date.) This is a formula that calculates the percentage of animals that leave shelter facilities alive through adoption, return to owner, or transfer and is calculated on total animals entering the shelter system. As a national organization, Best Friends uses the save rate benchmark, which reflects intake minus euthanasia outcomes divided by intake, for all its program cities. Save rate reflects only the percentage of animals not euthanized and does not account for the number of animals still held in the shelter or in foster care. 

DO RESCUES AND TRANSPORTS ASSURE A ‘FOREVER’ HOME? 

There are no audits of Best Friends' by the City Controller; however, at the September 8, 2015, LA Animal Commission meeting, Marc Peralta,  Director for Best Friends at the Mission Hills shelter stated that, under its No Kill Los Angeles program, Best Friends pays each NKLA rescue $150 for each animal it “pulls” for adoption over the number taken the year before, and that it has more than 110 participating organizations in the NKLA coalition.  

On November 1, 2013, Best Friends posted, Pup My Ride transports 10,000th pup, which describes that an LA city shelter dog, named Bart "...rolled away on the Pup My Ride van to Greenhill Humane Society in Eugene, Oregon, making him the 10,000th pet transported by Best Friends Animal Society-Los Angeles to an adoption rescue partner across the country. 

Once an animal is transported, there is no guarantee of its fate. PETA provides an ongoing list of "rescues" that have gone awry at ‘No-Kill’ Label Slowly Killing Animals. Here are a few of these media reports for the past two months: 

NJ Pet Rescue Owner Charged in Second Animal Cruelty Case, April 26, 2017 -- FLEMINGTON, NJ -- For the second time in less than 18 months, the owner and operator of the Catnip Friends Rescue has been charged with animal cruelty by the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Frank Rizzo, chief of the Law Enforcement Division of the NJSPCA, said in a statement. In February 2016, Wilferth plead guilty to one $500 civil count of animal cruelty based on charges filed against in December 2015 regarding the death of a dog. 

Woman Charged With Animal Neglect…50 Cats Found in Cages at Store, April 20, 2017 - RIVERSIDE, Mo. -- An animal neglect charge was recently handed down against the owner of Street Cats Rescue in Riverside after police discovered awful odors and 50 cats inside cages, some of which suffered from poor health, KSHB reports. The court documents describe strong odors of feces and urine coming from the business, and cats being found in such poor health that they had to be euthanized. 

24 dogs, 10 cats seized from Phoenix rescue group in "devastating" condition, March 15, 2017 -- PHOENIX, AZ -- ABC15.com reported that authorities had seized 24 dogs and 10 cats from a self-professed animal “rescue” doing business as Wiggle Butts Dog Rescue…animals were found covered with ticks, suffering from hair loss and untreated injuries, and “extremely malnourished.” Many animals were covered with feces, and their paws were stained, evidently from standing in their own waste. 

Washington County Woman Charged with Animal Neglect, March 11, 2017 – WASHINGTON COUNTY, OR -- KATU reported that a woman who had allegedly been operating a “cat shelter” at her home had been charged with first-degree animal neglect after a dead cat was found near the residence. Authorities investigated after receiving complaints alleging that the woman had moved out of state and left cats without care, including some inside the house…at least one of the cats found in the abandoned residence had a serious bacterial infection and another had ringworm. Some also had severe upper respiratory infections and could be heard wheezing loudly before they were even seen hiding throughout the house. 

Fayetteville Woman Facing Animal Cruelty Charges After Nearly 30 Dogs, 3 Dead, Found In Her Home,  March 8, 2017 -- FAYETVILLE, AR -- 5NewsOnline.com reported that authorities had seized 26 live animals and three dead dogs from a woman who told them that she worked with self-professed animal “rescue” groups. The animals were found inside small cages with accumulated feces inches deep, their coats were saturated with urine and feces, and several were “abnormally thin or weak.” In some areas of the home, accumulations of feces were 3 feet deep. A veterinarian who examined the three dead dogs determined that one of them had been dead for months. The woman had reportedly adopted 10 dogs since 2015 from a self-professed “no-kill” group in Texas doing business as San Antonio Pets Alive and had adopted another dog from a shelter in Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Dozens of Animals Seized from Florence Animal Shelter, March 22, 2017 -- FLORENCE, TX -- Authorities had seized 89 cats and a dog from a self-professed “no-kill” shelter [[[ http://5newsonline.com/2017/03/08/fayetteville-woman-facing-animal-cruelty-charges-after-nearly-30-dogs-3-dead-found-in-her-home/ ]]] doing business as R.U.G. Activity Center Animal Shelter after a state health inspector found cats housed in cages “with not enough room to move about,” overflowing litterboxes that contained days’ worth of feces and urine, and sick cats housed with healthy ones, FOX7 reported. 

Greyhound Adoption Shelter Accused of Mistreating Animals, March 2, 2017 -- Hopkinton, MA -- FOX25 Boston reported that a self-professed “no-kill” “rescue” doing business as Greyhound Friends, Inc., had been issued a cease and desist order by state authorities. A former board member said that state officials had told the “rescue” that cages were too small for the size of the dogs being held there. Two former board members who were interviewed said that they were alarmed to learn that many dogs had been kept in cages at the “rescue” for years. 

WHAT HAS BEST FRIENDS GAINED FROM LOS ANGELES? 

When a new Los Angeles city animal shelter and clinic broke ground in 2008, it promised to provide the Northeast Valley with badly needed animal control services. In fact, the plea to pass Prop. F bond funds in the amount of $154,000,000 was based upon studies which showed it was essential for animal welfare and public safety to provide an additional shelter in that area. 

However, upon completion of the Mission Hills (NE Valley shelter) in 2011, the City decided it couldn’t afford to staff it. It was the perfect opportunity for Best Friends, which leases the $19 million facility for $1 per year, plus the City pays $200,000/year for maintenance. 

A December 7, 2016 report by the City Administrative Officer states, "Since January 2012, BFAS has invested over $3.5 million annually in the operation of the NEV facility." 

In the five-year period ending in 2015, Best Friends "took in $313,676,006 in total support -- tens of millions of dollars more than when it came to LA in 2011," according to the Guss Report on January 9, 2017. 

OTHER LARGE CITIES CLAIM ‘NO-KILL’ 

AUSTIN, TX -- "This coming February, Austin will celebrate its five-year anniversary of being America’s largest no kill city, saving more than 90 percent of its homeless animals since 2011," writes Kristen Auerbach for the Huffington Post.  

But, there's another side of the story: As City Reaches No-kill, Free-roaming Dogs Still Trouble Neighborhoods  April 27, 2016 -- At about the same time as one of the most brutal dog attacks in recent San Antonio history — a South Side man had his scalp and ear ripped off by a pack of dogs in December, before a police officer arrived and shot three of the animals — the city's Animal Care Services department announced it had reached a long-elusive goal. As 2015 closed, more than 9 out of every 10 dogs were being released from ACS care alive. 

NEW YORK CITY, NY 

ANIMAL CARE CENTERS OF NYC (ACC) RELEASES Q1 2017 DATA -- 94.3% Placement Rate Highest in Nation -- April 18, 2017 -- Animal Care Centers of NYC (ACC), the only open-admissions animal shelter serving all five boroughs, announced today…the overall placement rate for cats and dogs reached 94.3% with 95.5% of cats and 92.6% of dogs finding placement, either through direct adoptions or through its New Hope adoption partner program. Risa Weinstock, ACC’s Executive Director, attributes this accomplishment to the ASPCA, 200 active New Hope Partners; however, she also notes that “intake has decreased by 35% over last year..." 

LA BREEDERS' LICENSES INCREASE WHILE IMPOUNDS GO DOWN 

Efforts to ban easy retail access to purebred dogs can merely make them more desirable and/or drive purchasers to a nearby city or to the Internet, which is rife with easy access to every breed. This can be a desire to replicate a childhood pet, preference for certain genetic characteristics, or a loss of confidence in the transparency of shelter information and fear of potential temperament liability caused by the desperation to "save" every animal. 

This could provide an insight into why the number of breeders' licenses sold by LA Animal Services increased by 44% -- from 466 to 669, according to Brenda Barnette's Woofstat report for February 2017, and was up 71% from the same period last year. 

Also, LAAS statistics have shown a decrease in impounds. If this were due to intense low-income community spay/neuter efforts, then it is admirable. However, it is clouded by the fact that City residents claim they can't reach LA shelters by phone to get stray and aggressive animals picked up in their communities; and Los Angeles has the highest number of bites to postal carriers in the U.S. in 2016. 

DECLARING A SHELTER ‘NO KILL’ DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE ENTIRE CITY 

In discussing the laudable efforts to increase the live-save rate in Austin, John Bachman, co-executive director of Voice for Animals, makes a point that should also be heeded by Los Angeles: "By being obsessed with...no-kill and then say 'Oh we've reached it,' they give a false impression to the whole city that 'Oh we don't have to worry anymore, we're no-kill.’" 

In Los Angeles, we must share the concerns that announcements of a city reaching "no kill" can cause politicians and communities where stray animals are not a constant threat to safety to tune out other serious animal-related issues. We already see it in the failure to hire badly needed Animal Control Officers and replace dangerous vehicles in service for over 15 years. 

NOT ALL PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED BY ‘SAVING’ ANIMALS 

The emotionally charged, enigmatic buzzwords “No Kill” is right at the top of on-going controversies over semantics and statistics and can be strategically interjected into any discussion regarding animal shelters in order to elicit passionate response by the public -- i.e., donors -- where tugging on heartstrings usually opens pocketbooks.  

But are we really getting the truth about the plight of unwanted animals and a clear concept of what is meant by reaching “no kill?” Or are statistics and reports regarding euthanasia manipulated to show progress or failure depending on who stands to benefit philosophically and/or financially? 

Factors that are missing in the mandate to just "save" animals at all costs is the need to create and enforce owner responsibility and to solve the "birth problem" to avoid overpopulation, strays, and the need for euthanasia. John Bachman said it is pure mathematics: "Adoption is like treatment. You're treating the problem, but you're not solving the epidemic."

(Phyllis M. Daugherty is a former City of LA employee and a contributor to CityWatch.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

-cw

CORRUPTION WATCH-Should California judges put personal self-interest and loyalty to other judges ahead of their duty to support the Constitution? 

In ancient days, loyalty to one’s own family or tribe predated concepts of justice. Early societies realized social cohesion could not exist without people knowing that power was not the controlling factor in all matters. From the start of civilization, all societies have had some institution to apply the laws. 

Hammurabi’s famous code found perjury highly offensive (3,745 to 3,703 years ago.) We all know about the commandment “not to bear false witness against one’s neighbor.” Because one’s own may be guilty, there is an inherent conflict between loyalty to one’s own and telling the truth. 

After the Fall it was pretty much downhill as far as truth-telling is concerned. However, as mankind settled into an agricultural mode, populations expanded, and people became more interdependent, mankind at least had the sense to recognize that falsehood was a serious problem. As Sissela Bok puts it in her study of lying, "trust in some degree of veracity functions as a foundation of relations among human beings; when this trust shatters or wears away, institutions collapse." An ethic of loyalty to kith and kin may be enough for an extremely primitive sort of existence. [“False Witness,” 1993, by Richard H. Underwood, Univ. of Kentucky)

The civilized world’s legal codes have realized that society’s survival depends upon trust in institutions and that trust requires honesty. The point which most people miss about the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah is that, according to the rabbis, the extreme offenders were the judges themselves, who were named Liar, Habitual Liar, Deceiver, and Perverter of the Law. While everyone can grasp the troubles that came for regular people who lied in individual cases, it was when the judges themselves are the culprits that the existence of society itself became imperiled.

(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-Did a rogue Los Angeles deputy city attorney criminally misuse his authority to dupe a Los Angeles Times reporter into publishing an untrue article about a criminal charge he said he filed, but did not – one that he never intended to prosecute? 

That prosecutor, Eugene Hall, Jr, appears to have done this to intimidate and coerce with negative publicity a prospective defendant so that he would drop his civil rights lawsuits against Hall’s employer, the City of Los Angeles, and several of its officials. That practice is strictly prohibited by the California Bar Association, which tightened such rules on May 1; it may be criminal as well. 

Here’s how it went down…. 

Wednesday March 29 – 4:35 p.m.: Los Angeles Times reporter Emily Alpert Reyes sent notorious City Hall gadfly/Encino immigration attorney Wayne Spindler, the following text message: 

“Hi Wayne, this is Emily Alpert Reyes with the LA Times. The City Attorney’s office informed me they are filing criminal charges against you for illegally possessing an assault weapon. I’d like to get any comment you can provide. I’m available at this number. Thanks!” 

(Note: Spindler turned in the gun for destruction back on May 20, 2016 as part of a court order that he is appealing. What transpired between then and the allegation leveled against him this spring is that he has since filed civil rights lawsuits against the city and several of its officials. His purchase receipt for the gun is dated January 25, 1989, predating the 1991 ban which at most calls for a $500 citation, though a recent state program with a faulty website allowed gun owners to register without ramification.)

Before Spindler reached Reyes, her article was published on the Times’ website at 6:10 p.m., and read, “Spindler was charged with a misdemeanor and is scheduled to be arraigned in April,” citing Rob Wilcox, a spokesman for City Attorney Mike Feuer. 

But Reyes failed to confirm whether that was truthful, because no such charge, or any other charge, was listed against Spindler on the court’s website (which is the official record) on March 29 or any of the subsequent six days. 

An email from CityWatch contributor Eric Preven to Spindler, which is now part of the court record, alleges that reporter Reyes told Preven that she did not get her information from Wilcox, whose press release was not distributed until later the next day: 

“How did Emily hear about it? She says she didn't get the City Attorney press release... and referred me to the company spokeswoman when I asked her.” 

Spindler says that later in the evening of March 29, after Reyes’ article was published online, he told her he was unaware of the charge, but she would not tell him how she heard about it.

The only person other than Wilcox who would likely have had access to the case information was Deputy City Attorney Eugene Hall, Jr. who, along with Reyes, Wilcox, and Feuer, has refused to answer questions for this article. 

Thursday March 30 – 2:11 p.m.: With Reyes’ article about Spindler now in the print edition of the Times without any corrections, I contacted her to determine whether she had any unconventional or inappropriate contact with prosecutor Hall. Both Reyes and the LA Times spokesperson to whom she referred me, Hillary Manning, refused to answer, citing: 

“We do not have a comment on this, as it relates to the details of our newsgathering. If you have a question about the information as reported in the published story, please let me know.” 

That is precisely what I did, but Reyes and Manning offered only circular replies.

Monday April 3rd – 9pm: With still no charge against Spindler in the court system, CityWatch published my article about the false information in Reyes’ LA Times piece.

Tuesday April 4 – 8:04 a.m.: Reyes sent Spindler the following text: 

“Hi Wayne, this is Emily with the LA Times. Did you ever get a notice to appear for the weapons charge? I’m driving in to work right now but will be available in about an hour.” 

Having had no contact with Spindler since March 29, Reyes would only have asked that question as a result of reading the accusations in my article.

Instead of replying to Reyes, Spindler says he watched the next several hours unfold as follows. He believes that Reyes may have been confronted with my article by LA Times brass and/or she made a panicked call to prosecutor Hall to find out why there was still no case on the court’s website a full six days after she wrote that the case was filed and is scheduled for arraignment. Spindler plausibly explains that Hall – fearing possible disbarment, criminal charges and civil liability as a result of my article – then had to file the charge, which is precisely what Hall did on the 4th. 

The likely reason why Hall didn’t actually file the charge prior to April 4 is because he knew that if it was filed, it would permanently remain on Spindler’s record even if he didn’t prosecute the case; he would have no bargaining chip in such a scenario. But by just appearing to have filed the case, but not actually doing so, Hall could assure Spindler that the charge would never appear on his record, and use it as a bargaining chip to coerce Spindler to drop his civil suits. 

It was Hall’s sloppy paper trail that unraveled his ruse. 

The court’s website shows that Hall did not file the case until April 4, but the case file contains a paper copy of the complaint, stamped and dated by the court clerk as “Filed March 30, 2017.” 

If Hall’s March 30 paper complaint had been filed as its stamp indicates, which it was not, it would have immediately shown up on the court’s website. Even to this date, it has not. He somehow got a deputy court clerk named Elawna Brown to stamp his Spindler complaint as “filed,” perhaps during a window visit in which clerks often stamp dozens of documents for attorneys, and pulled back that particular one without having it actually processed into the court system. In other words, Hall got his complaint stamped as filed, without the actual filing of the complaint that the stamp reflects was done. 

Hall appears to have used his fraudulently stamped document to get Reyes to write her article, before Wilcox’s press release (which she allegedly said she never received) was distributed. There is seemingly no other way Reyes could have learned about the case other than through Hall’s fraudulently stamped complaint. 

And Hall, who is based in the City Attorney’s office in Van Nuys, signed the fraudulently stamped Spindler complaint not in Van Nuys on March 29, but in Los Angeles, meaning downtown LA, which is where reporter Emily Alpert Reyes is based and published her article on March 29 with no other logical source for the false information. 

As Barry Scheck, a defense attorney in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, legendarily barked, “there…..there, how about that Mr. Fung?” 

Public records support that Hall had no intention to file the charge, but was forced to cover his tracks by filing it on April 4, immediately after my April 3 article was published.

But things are much worse than that for prosecutor Eugene Hall Jr. 

On March 29, when Hall signed his complaint against Spindler (the one later fraudulently stamped as “filed” on March 30) it triggered three letters from his boss, Supervising Deputy City Attorney Richard A. Schmidt, that were sent to each of Spindler’s residences, which falsely stated: 

“Please be advised that a criminal complaint has been filed charging you with a violation of Section P30605a, commonly known as possession of assault weapon.” 

Since there was no such complaint at that time, and for the subsequent six days, each mailed letter might constitute a misuse of prosecutorial power and mail fraud. 

Reyes, as late as last Friday, continues to refuse to state where she got her faulty story information. When Spindler texted her again to ask, she replied: 

“Because Dan has been making an issue of this, I don’t want to say anything beyond what we’ve put in the newspaper. But I think the story is clear about who provided the information.” 

So much for the Times’ policy about not explaining its newsgathering practices…. 

The judge in the case, the amiable, semi-retired Bernard J. Kamins, who earned the nickname “Judge Bear” for giving teddy bears to children involved in his cases, and for his successful drug rehabilitation programs, may be particularly receptive to claims of prosecutorial misconduct; he is a former public defender. 

If proven, that spells immense and costly trouble ahead for Hall, Schmidt, Feuer, Brown, Reyes and their respective employers.

(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.

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW--In a 10-0 vote Friday, the city council passed a resolution authored by Councilmember Bob Blumenfield  appealing to Congress to investigate whether Trump has violated the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause. The resolution also calls for investigations into high crimes and misdemeanors that could lead to impeachment against the president. Blumenfield represents Council District 3, the northwest San Fernando Valley, including Canoga Park, Reseda, Tarzana, Winnetka and Woodland Hills. Absent from Friday’s vote were Councilman Mitch Englander, the sole Republican on the Council, as well as Council Members Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz and Joe Buscaino.

Since the election, many are familiar with the Emoluments Clause, also known as the Title of Nobility Clause, which is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Trump’s extensive business and real estate dealings have brought concerns, particularly with respect to foreign government agencies that may fall within the clause’s scope. For example, back in March, China granted 38 provisional “Trump” trademarks scheduled to become permanent within 90 days.

Blumenfield worked on the resolution with We st Valley Resistance, which supports investigating Trump for possible impeachable offenses; similar resolutions have passed in other cities and towns across the country, including Richmond, Alameda and Berkeley, as well as Cambridge, Massachusetts.

While Trump has issued statements that the Trump Organization would be donating any profits derived from foreign government guests at his DC hotel to the Treasury and that his organization would not enter into any deals with foreign governments during his term, the Trump Organization is opening a 57-story Trump Tower in Manila and a spokesman for Blumenfield says the president’s relationship with Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte should be investigated. Duterte has been criticized for alleged human rights violations against suspected drug dealers in his country.

While the council resolution is only symbolic, the Trump presidency is certainly a game changer. We’ve yet to see a president and an administration with so many questionable actions and conflicts. Whatever messages we can send to Washington, whether involving Emoluments Clause violations or high crimes and misdemeanors seem to be fair game.

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

-cw

PERSPECTIVE--Illegal sources of income are subject to federal and state income tax; so, why would I object to the City of Los Angeles collecting Transitory Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue from illegal short-term rentals, such as Air BnB?

In the former case, taxation does not exempt scofflaws from prosecution.  If anything, tax compliance requirements are useful tools to bring criminals to justice or enhance their sentences . If Al Capone were alive, he would agree.

The latter is different – it creates an impediment to enforcing zoning laws.  A cash-strapped city like Los Angeles will not want to bite the hands that feed it.  It is the equivalent of bribery.  Pay to play, and the city will not pursue enforcement of residential zoning codes. The City Council and mayor will drag their feet, if not completely overlook, the protection of honest residents’ right to enjoy their neighborhoods without the adverse effects associated with revolving door occupancy.

In his annual budget letter to the mayor and City Council, City Controller Ron Galperin weighed in.  He said the city must be “vigilant to consider the potential TOT revenue impacts to the general fund.”

As I read between the lines of his statement, that’s not really an endorsement of the policy. If anything, it is a carefully nuanced assessment.  Ron is the controller and he is required to advise the city on any financial matter – good or bad.

But zoning violations should not be ignored just because the cash generated by the TOT partially mitigates the effects of the city’s reckless approach in managing its budget. Please note that Galperin also emphasized the importance of a prudent and well-balanced budget. Ignoring laws does not meet the definition of prudent.

It’s a good thing that a city-sanctioned, short-term rental scheme did not exist when Scarface Al was around. No telling how much more power he would have wielded in Chicago.

We now face an army of non violent mini-Als, no baseball bats or Chicago pianos, but armed with industry lawyers and plenty of money. 

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

-cw

MEDIA POLITICS--Hollywood's primary writer’s union has come to the defense of member Stephen Colbert after Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai said he was investigating an anti-President Donald Trump monologue the comedian delivered on his Late Show last week. 

In a radio interview last Friday, Pai said that his agency was looking into a Late Show monologue delivered on May 1st that criticized Trump for abruptly aborting an interview with CBS News' John Dickerson. Pai said the agency had received complaints—some online critics have labeled Colbert's monologue homophobic—and promised it would "apply the law" set out by the courts.

In a joint statement this morning, Writers Guild of America East and West presidents Michael Winship and Howard Rodman wrote that they were "appalled" by Pai's remarks. "Pai's remarks are just the latest in a series of statements by the current administration indicating a willful disregard of the First Amendment," they wrote. "What is obscene is not what Colbert said but any attempt by the government to stifle dissent and creativity."

The FCC reviews complaints of broadcast content and typically issues fines when it concludes flagged content is obscene or indecent. A fine on Colbert seems unlikely, however, owing in part to the higher tolerance for explicit content in late-night time programming. 

(Katie Kilkenny is an associate editor at Pacific Standard  … where this piece was first posted. She covers culture both online and in print.)

-cw

GUEST WORDS--(Editor’s note: As is often the case in development arguments, things are seldom black and white. This is the Hollywood Chamber’s perspective where jobs and community convenience have priority. Richard Lee Abrams, has other thoughts not the least of which is that the General Plan … the voice of the community … deserves to be upheld. Check them both out. Let us know what you think.) 

By now, most people have heard the disappointing news that Superior Court Judge Richard L. Fruin, Jr. has once again sided with a very small group of plaintiffs to prevent Hollywood's new Target from being completed. I thought it might be appropriate to offer of few of my own observations on this sad state of affairs. 

Let me first offer a little background. It has now been nine years since Target first filed to build a store in Hollywood. When it was initially approved by the City and threatened with a lawsuit, Target decided to do a complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to strengthen its case against lawsuits. However, that later proved to be of little value. 

At issue was a quirk in the Station Neighborhood Area Plan (SNAP) that governs development in that area. The SNAP ordinance allows projects that are strictly retail to only be 35 feet in height, but allows mixed-use projects to be up to 75 feet. The City Council and Planning Commission felt that the Target would be a benefit to the neighborhood and granted a variance to allow the project to be built at the 75-foot height. 

The La Mirada Neighborhood Association, which is reputed to have only two or three members, sued. Judge Fruin ruled that the EIR was fine, but that the city erred in granting a variance and should have changed the zoning. 

The City, in order to comply with the judge's order, created a new Subarea F zoning category for big box retail centers. Once again, the La Mirada Neighborhood Association sued, saying that the City should have performed a new EIR to justify the new zoning designation. And once again, the judge agreed with the plaintiffs. It serves no purpose to rebut the judge's rationale for his decision, but I would like to share my thoughts on what a loss this means for Hollywood. 

Between 250 and 300 permanent jobs have been lost to the community now for several years because of these lawsuits. These are jobs that could have been filled by many of the low-income residents in the neighborhood close to the Target site. In addition, the Target would have provided expanded shopping opportunities for our entire Hollywood community, and would have been within walking distance for many low-income neighborhoods. It is only two blocks from the Hollywood/Western subway station and so is easily reachable from all areas of Hollywood. We haven't had a department store since Sears closed its Hollywood store in 2008, so this would have been a wonderful addition to the community. 

I get more questions about the status of the Target from both residents and businesses than any other subject. There is overwhelming support in Hollywood for this store. So the question is "What are the specific reasons why these few people are opposing the Target so vehemently?" 

Robert Silverstein, the plaintiff's attorney, usually responds that the plaintiffs aren't against a Target -- they just want them to follow the city's rules. My objection to that answer is that rules set by a city are not cast in stone. 

Historically, cities have always had broad discretionary powers to determine land use within their bounds. The SNAP ordinance is not the U.S. Constitution. The City should have the right to make changes as circumstances warrant. 

We live in an urban area. What value is achieved by limiting a retail center to one story? When we have attended past hearings on the Target, the main justification of the opponents for their position is that they want housing built in the neighborhood, not just retail centers. If developers want added height, they have to provide housing as well, they say. They also have voiced concerns over views being blocked or a building built out-of-scale with the neighborhood. 

I could understand these arguments eight years ago, but circumstances have changed dramatically since that time and the rationale for those positions no longer applies. In the interim, three projects have been announced and are in the entitlement phase across the street from the Target that will provide 1,293 housing units. These projects will all be as high, or higher, than the Target. So what purpose is to be achieved by forcing the Target to be torn down and rebuilt at one story? My answer would be, "absolutely none." 

The opponents can bask in their latest court victory, but in my view, they should be asking themselves if they are really serving the greater good for Hollywood? If Target pulls out because they are tired of fighting this small group of naysayers, have the interests of Hollywood really been served? Does the loss of these needed jobs and shopping opportunities mean anything to the opponents? 

Being with the Chamber of Commerce, I am an eternal optimist. We have been through some difficult times in Hollywood, and despite setbacks, the community's revitalization continues to move forward. I remain hopeful that a solution can be found so that the Target can be completed. Meanwhile, I would urge everyone who is supportive of having the Target finished to not be silent. Let the La Mirada Neighborhood Association know how you feel.

(Leron Gubler has been serving as the President and CEO of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce for the past 24 years. His tenure since 1992 continues to oversee the great comeback story of Hollywood.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

CORRUPTION WATCH--(Editor’s note: As is often the case in development arguments, things are seldom black and white. See the Hollywood Chamber’s perspective where jobs and community convenience have priority. This is Richard Lee Abrams perspective. He has other thoughts not the least of which is that the General Plan … the voice of the community … deserves to be upheld. Check them both out. Let us know what you think.) 

In the April 27, 2017 issue of CityWatch, Dave Bell wrote an article, “Why Can’t We Have Nice Things?”   Judge Richard Fruin has answered that question in his seventeen page explanation again rejecting the Hollywood Target Store. The reason that partially-finished monster is still looming over Sunset-Western can be summed up in one word -- Garcetti. Since Judge Fruin must use “legalese,” he cannot come out and act like a Biblical prophet pointing at King David proclaiming, “Thou art the man!” 

By the way, Petitioners did not sue after the store was partially built. Target started building after the case was already in court, knowing that a 74-foot store was illegal. It was a cynical ploy to tell Judge Fruin that it would be an economic waste not to allow the Target Store to continue constructing the illegal store. And Judge Fruin was not favorably impressed. 

Judge Fruin’s legal reasoning in again rejecting the Target Store made it clear that the problem rests with the City and not with the Petitioners. And when the judge refers to the City, he clearly means Garcetti. Garcetti was then the councilman who insisted that Target violate the law back in 2008-2009. After the court rejected the first Target Store, Garcetti insisted on appealing. The case has been all the way to the California Supreme Court and back down, but the City, i.e. Garcetti, does not listen. 

The City Persists in Violating the Law 

In 2016 the City tried to do another end-run around Judge Fruin and the law, the same way Garcetti and his love-child project at 5929 Sunset had tried to do by demolishing the facade of the Spaghetti Factory. As a result of those Garcetti machinations, that huge residential project sits vacant. Nonetheless Garcetti had the City give his buddies at CIM Group $17.4 Million. 

Then in 2015, the courts rejected The Millennium (Earthquake) Towers in Hollywood as a violation of the law. These last two cases were before Judge James Chalfant. 

Garcetti also subverted the law with his 2012 Update to the Hollywood Community Plan. In January 2014, Judge Allan Goodman rejected the Hollywood Community Plan Update as based on “fatally flawed data and wishful thinking that subverted the law (CEQA).” 

These legal loses are not the fault of the City Attorney’s Office which has to follow the directions of its client, the City. That means when the City Attorney tells Eric Garcetti that a project is illegal and he should follow the law, the City Attorney still has to show up in court and put on the best face possible. If Garcetti would heed the wise advice of the City Attorney’s Office, the City could operate more smoothly and would not be spending millions on attorney fees to lose cases. There was also the $1.3 billion sidewalk case that came with $15 million in attorney fees. 

The Issue in Target II 

The fundamental issue in this recent Target case is whether the City could make a major change in the zoning law, i.e. the Specific Plan “SNAP,” without conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIR). Think of an EIR as like a final exam: if you skip the final, you fail the course. Duh! Maybe, trust fund babies who went to Harvard-Westlake are allowed to buy their way out of final exams. Who knows? 

Thus, Garcetti decided that there was no need to have the final exam for the recent change in SNAP. Garcetti has yet to learn that just because he says something, does not make it so. He may be able to fool the voters, but he cannot fool the professionals. If he had listened to the City Attorney back in 2009, Hollywood would have probably had a Target by 2010. If he had listened to the legal professionals in early 2016, he would not have insisted on adding a Subarea F to SNAP without conducting an EIR. 

A Brief History of SNAP 

The citizens and professionals who drafted SNAP took years to classify every single parcel of property within its area as belonging to one of five Subareas A through E. SNAP rejected the idea of a Subarea F as it did not want mega-stores. SNAP is a new zoning law that became effective in March 2001. When Garcetti decided to ignore it in 2008, SNAP was less than a decade old – not some ancient zoning code which had become out dated. 

Adding a New Subarea F Was a Huge Change in SNAP 

Adding a Subarea F which would allow mega big box stores in Hollywood was a significant change to SNAP. It required the City to conduct a new EIR to assess the impacts on Hollywood if the streets were filled with these warehouse type mega-stores. 

Starting back in 2008, Garcetti could have cooperated and allowed Target to build a legal store with its parking underground. If then-Councilmember Garcetti had permitted Target to construct the type of facility the law allowed, the store could have been operating by 2010. Instead, there has been close to a decade of lawsuits; we may very well face another decade of them. 

The decision is up to Garcetti. Does he want to guarantee that Hollywood has no Target Store while he spends millions on attorneys to take the same matter to the appellate court, then on to the Supreme Court, only to be told, “You cannot graduate from high school without taking the final exam?” 

In the end, what are Hollywoodians going to get? Endless Garcetti litigation? Or will Mayor Garcetti allow Target to construct a legal store? Don’t expect a resolution to this fight or construction on the Target store … any time soon.

(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.

PERSPECTIVE--Mayor Eric Garcetti caught some flak in a recent LA Times article for failing to mention the $1.1B the city must pay to fund employee pensions. 

But let’s be fair: the Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee deserves an equal share of the criticism:

“Despite recent funding shortfalls, over long periods the performance of the pension system’s investments has met or surpassed expectations.” Council Member Paul Krekorian (photo above), as quoted in the LA Times, November 18, 2016.

This is an example of the naiveté of our elected officials. Mr. Krekorian forgets, or chooses to ignore, that past performance is no indication of future returns; the further back in time, the less relevant are the results. The 15-year return for LACERS is 6.5%; the 10-year is 5.9%. The world economy has undergone major structural changes over the 30 year period, for which the average return was 8.4%.  Projecting investment performance based on data from over 20 years ago is as useful as comparing Barry Bonds’ stats to Hank Aaron’s.

Or maybe it’s an acknowledgement that city officials do not represent the public as a whole, only the city employees and retirees, many of whom reside outside of the city. According to the results of a 2014 study reported by the Times, about two-thirds of city employees live elsewhere. So much for a multiplier effect. While those employees cannot vote in city elections, the unions representing them are powerful political forces. 

The mayor and City Council hope to make a dent in the problem by taxing short-term, Airbnb style rentals, effectively trashing zoning in residential neighborhoods.  Certainly, a share of the new gas tax will flow to the city, along with some “legalized” pot-related revenue (it remains to be seen how the Justice Department deals with the conflict between federal and state laws).  However, the city could lose some, or all, of the surplus transfer from the DWP.

The fact remains, 20% of the general fund goes to cover the city’s pension contribution, a rate that has increased from 5% in 2002. It’s been fairly flat at around 20% for a couple of years. In 2012 it was 15%, the same for 2008, during the height of the subprime mortgage meltdown. Overall, city revenue has increased by $1.2B since Garcetti took office. With that much of an increase, one would expect the city’s contribution rate to drop.  It’s an inconsistency any CEO would have to explain to a board in the form of a simple variance analysis.

It is the result of the deteriorating pension position.  While explaining what an unfunded liability means would put any general audience to sleep, it is far easier – and more understandable – to present an analysis of the contribution rate over a period of several years.  It would make the growing unsustainability of pension promises apparent in terms the public could appreciate.

I will propose to the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) to make such information a required disclosure in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).

Who knows – maybe Paul Krekorian would be enlightened.

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

-cw

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW--Earlier this year, I covered Caney Arnold’s Council District 15 run. The progressive grassroots candidate had hoped to parlay his background in Air Force acquisition and program management, as well as a graduate degree in Public Policy and Administration, to create change at the council level but his campaign was truncated by the March primary. 

Arnold is still on course to create change. “Now that the City Council races are over, I’ve moved on to other projects,” he shares. I sat down with Arnold to discuss his role as Our Voice LA Leader and the national Our Voice Initiative.  

Started by Sam Ronan, the young Air Force Reserve who ran for DNC Chair, Our Voice Initiative is a national nonpartisan grassroots organization to bring “movements and groups together...and provide a common toolbox of strategy, policy, and organizing/funding resources to new candidates who want to take on the establishment.” -- Our Voice Initiative.  The group will focus on providing information on propositions, laws, and regulations proposed at all levels of government; vetting candidates; and organizing protests, rallies, town hall meetings, marches, inquiries, and hearings. 

Arnold says he was inspired by Ronen’s drive to help create a political and campaign system that belongs to the people. “Our Voice Initiative will act as a political consultant to help those interested in participating more in the process -- to help them understand how to do that.” The former candidate’s own campaign experience led him to appreciate the need for an information conduit. “A lot is getting info to the people in a way they can digest without having to spend their entire lives trying to access that information. People just don’t have the time to collect information. CityWatch is doing a great service, similar to what Our Voices is trying to do,” he says. “We want to bring information to the people about what is going on with the government behind closed doors and to encourage them to participate in the process themselves, whether it’s as simple as participating in campaign finance and advocacy or running for office.” 

While Our Voice is a national organization with state chapters, Arnold says he approached the group about organizing at the city level in Los Angeles. “I think ours is the first at the city level -- not an official chapter -- but they’re supporting us and are thrilled that we’re working in LA,” he adds. 

“What we’re trying to do is to create a more nonpartisan umbrella group and to extend to the local level while other groups are stuck at the state congressional or federal level,” Arnold says. “In order to develop grassroots candidates, we have to start with city council and school board races -- and build from there. That’s what I am interested in going in LA and it’s the purpose of Our Voice, as well.” 

Arnold says he “learned a lot from his run for City Council. “There’s an unfairness built into the campaign system and the election process. We face voter apathy and those are things I want to get more involved in -- to just help make people more aware. During the council race, a couple of motions were offered up by city councilmember on campaign finance, involving a lower hurdle for matching funds, for example. I think they brought up some motions that never went anywhere. They just died in committee. It seems like a disingenuous photo opp to try to convince voters that they’re interested. I’d be interested in resurrecting this or improving upon it to help create a fair campaign process in Los Angeles.” 

Arnold sees the Resist Movement as a catapult to change. “The main thing is there’s lots of commonality as far as grassroots concerns go on the left and the right. Everyone agrees that there’s too much corruption in government. Plenty of people will march, which is great to raise awareness but they don’t want to go the distance, to do voter registration or Get Out the Vote, to donate $25, phone bank, or canvas. It isn’t as sexy. But we’re all in this together. We can do both. We need to raise awareness and to move forward. That’s what Our Voice will do -- to pull people together.” 

For more information on Our Voice Initiative, visit the site. 

Donate to Our Voice Initiative through Indiegogo. 

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

-cw

EDUCATION POLITICS-This is the third post in a series. We’ve been deep diving into a Unified Enrollment scheme, a top priority of the charter lobby, that’s being pushed on LAUSD officials without a discussion of policy implications and almost no public input. 

In the first post, we laid out some of the scholarly research that finds Unified Enrollment systems exacerbate inequitable access to schools. They’ve been funded by the pro-charter Walton Family Foundation in New Orleans and Denver. 

In the second post, we revealed a process that looks a lot like the iPad scandal, complete with secret meetings to lobby board members and slick, pseudo-public presentations. Policy implications are not on the agenda. 

In this post, as promised, we’ll introduce the privatizers who have infiltrated the school district to advance the interests of the charter lobby. 

Conspiracy theory? Hardly. This just looks like the new business model. Since the iPad scandal, privatizers have had to find new ways to move their agenda. The scandal made direct corporate lobbying behind the scenes too risky. But there’s no need, if you have managed to plant your sales force inside the school system itself.  

The District personnel pitching the Unified Enrollment scheme are not just any LAUSD employees. They are Broad and Walton acolytes, trained and placed in the school system to move the corporate reform agenda forward from the inside. 

Ani Bagdasarian Packard started working at LAUSD while corporate reform poster boy John Deasy was Superintendent. For two years, she worked in LAUSD as a Broad fellow, just as Broad’s education empire shifted its focus. Previously a training academy for Superintendents, it would now focus on lower level staff “to make it easier for superintendents to define policy agendas, influence public opinion, coalesce political forces, and advance bold reforms on the ground,” according to a Washington Post article from that time. 

Bagdasarian Packard is now “advancing bold reforms on the ground” as Program Policy Development Advisor for LAUSD. 

In her presentation to LAUSD’s Early Education and Parent Engagement Committee on February 28, 2017, Bagdasarian Packard explained that after the technology scandals that led to John Deasy’s ouster from LAUSD, “…my colleague and I decided to move forward with this, and we worked with IT to go with solution B, Plan B.” 

Her colleague? 

Maybe she was talking about Jodie Newbery, who presented with her at that meeting as well as at last week’s Bond Oversight Committee (BOC) to try to get the secret project funded with $24 million in school construction bonds. 

Newbery was also hired when Deasy was Superintendent, in October 2011. 

Where did she come from? Her three previous positions were in charter school promotion, according to her LinkedIn profile. First for the New York City Center for Charter School Excellence and then for the California Charter Schools Association. Her most recent job was as "Senior Manager, Walton Family Foundation Grant and Los Angeles School Development." Then she made the jump to LAUSD as Program and Policy Advisor, Portfolio Management. That doesn't require a conspiracy theory. How much more explicit could you get? 

So a couple of low level co-workers inside LAUSD are behind a major policy shift for the District? 

That is bold. And could be great, if it meant that LAUSD was truly becoming receptive to bottom-up innovation. But the dynamic seems to be about something other than welcoming diverse input. 

At the BOC, District administrative staff balked when BOC member Rachel Greene asked what Board policy the project was advancing before approving its funding. The answers were vague at best. District staffer Diane Pappas said the policy was Board approved in the Superintendent’s Strategic Plan. She neglected to mention that the Board has refused to vote on the Strategic Plan. Anyway, she said, they'd been meeting privately with individual board members to get buy-in. 

I have found no evidence that a policy decision about Unified Enrollment has even occurred. 

The BOC agenda materials claim that the Unified Enrollment System falls under the catch-all “School Upgrade Program” which is for “upgrading, building and repairing school facilities to improve student health, safety and educational quality.” Seems like a stretch in this case, as it did when Deasy used the same rationale to use bond funds to pay for the iPad Common Core Technology Project. 

Just as with the iPad scandal, District staff is pushing hard. When BOC member Stuart Magruder, largely credited with first putting the brakes on the iPad boondoggle, asked if they were sure the District could meet the short timeline for Common Enrollment, Pappas answered, “We’re ready.”

Bagdasarian seemed more than ready. “These are just some snapshots of what it will look like” – she stopped herself -- “What it ‘may’ look like,” she said in the February presentation. 

And what multi-million dollar “reform” would be complete without a PR campaign? 

Reports of a new coalition to advocate for the inclusion of charters.  

Cue PEAPS-LA, a coalition of nonprofit education reformers to champion Unified Enrollment. The Partnership for Equitable Access to Public Schools Los Angeles includes Parent Revolution (of Steve Barr and Ben Austin acclaim) and Partnership for Los Angeles Schools (of Antonio Villaraigosa and Marshall Tuck acclaim), among others. 

So once again, all the pieces are in place, and the public only gets a seat to watch the result. With the iPads, the scandal surrounded alleged private lobbying efforts by corporate execs at Pearson. This time, the lobbying is hidden in plain sight, by LAUSD staff themselves. All they need now is the School Board's green light. No discussion necessary.

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

CORRUPTION WATCH-In the April 27, 2017 issue of CityWatch, Dave Bell wrote an article, “Why Can’t We Have Nice Things?”  Judge Richard Fruin has answered that question in his seventeen page explanation again rejecting the Hollywood Target Store. The reason that partially-finished monster is still looming over Sunset-Western can be summed up in one word -- Garcetti. Since Judge Fruin must use “legalese,” he cannot come out and act like a Biblical prophet pointing at King David proclaiming, “Thou art the man!” 

By the way, Petitioners did not sue after the store was partially built. Target started building after the case was already in court, knowing that a 74-foot store was illegal. It was a cynical ploy to tell Judge Fruin that it would be an economic waste not to allow the Target Store to continue constructing the illegal store. And Judge Fruin was not favorably impressed. 

Judge Fruin’s legal reasoning in again rejecting the Target Store made it clear that the problem rests with the City and not with the Petitioners. And when the judge refers to the City, he clearly means Garcetti. Garcetti was then the councilman who insisted that Target violate the law back in 2008-2009. After the court rejected the first Target Store, Garcetti insisted on appealing. The case has been all the way to the California Supreme Court and back down, but the City, i.e. Garcetti, does not listen. 

The City Persists in Violating the Law 

In 2016 the City tried to do another end-run around Judge Fruin and the law, the same way Garcetti and his love-child project at 5929 Sunset had tried to do by demolishing the facade of the Spaghetti Factory. As a result of those Garcetti machinations, that huge residential project sits vacant. Nonetheless Garcetti had the City give his buddies at CIM Group $17.4 Million. 

Then in 2015, the courts rejected The Millennium (Earthquake) Towers in Hollywood as a violation of the law. These last two cases were before Judge James Chalfant. 

Garcetti also subverted the law with his 2012 Update to the Hollywood Community Plan. In January 2014, Judge Allan Goodman rejected the Hollywood Community Plan Update as based on “fatally flawed data and wishful thinking that subverted the law (CEQA).” 

These legal loses are not the fault of the City Attorney’s Office which has to follow the directions of its client, the City. That means when the City Attorney tells Eric Garcetti that a project is illegal and he should follow the law, the City Attorney still has to show up in court and put on the best face possible. If Garcetti would heed the wise advice of the City Attorney’s Office, the City could operate more smoothly and would not be spending millions on attorney fees to lose cases. There was also the $1.3 billion sidewalk case that came with $15 million in attorney fees. 

The Issue in Target II 

The fundamental issue in this recent Target case is whether the City could make a major change in the zoning law, i.e. the Specific Plan “SNAP,” without conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIR). Think of an EIR as like a final exam: if you skip the final, you fail the course. Duh! Maybe, trust fund babies who went to Harvard-Westlake are allowed to buy their way out of final exams. Who knows? 

Thus, Garcetti decided that there was no need to have the final exam for the recent change in SNAP. Garcetti has yet to learn that just because he says something, does not make it so. He may be able to fool the voters, but he cannot fool the professionals. If he had listened to the City Attorney back in 2009, Hollywood would have probably had a Target by 2010. If he had listened to the legal professionals in early 2016, he would not have insisted on adding a Subarea F to SNAP without conducting an EIR. 

A Brief History of SNAP 

The citizens and professionals who drafted SNAP took years to classify every single parcel of property within its area as belonging to one of five Subareas A through E. SNAP rejected the idea of a Subarea F as it did not want mega-stores. SNAP is a new zoning law that became effective in March 2001. When Garcetti decided to ignore it in 2008, SNAP was less than a decade old – not some ancient zoning code which had become out dated. 

Adding a New Subarea F Was a Huge Change in SNAP 

Adding a Subarea F which would allow mega big box stores in Hollywood was a significant change to SNAP. It required the City to conduct a new EIR to assess the impacts on Hollywood if the streets were filled with these warehouse type mega-stores. 

Starting back in 2008, Garcetti could have cooperated and allowed Target to build a legal store with its parking underground. If then-Councilmember Garcetti had permitted Target to construct the type of facility the law allowed, the store could have been operating by 2010. Instead, there has been close to a decade of lawsuits; we may very well face another decade of them. 

The decision is up to Garcetti. Does he want to guarantee that Hollywood has no Target Store while he spends millions on attorneys to take the same matter to the appellate court, then on to the Supreme Court, only to be told, “You cannot graduate from high school without taking the final exam?” 

In the end, what are Hollywoodians going to get? Endless Garcetti litigation? Or will Mayor Garcetti allow Target to construct a legal store? Don’t expect a resolution to this fight or construction on the Target store … any time soon.

(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.