LOS ANGELES

MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS OBLIVIOUS--In high school, we all read with horror of the broken promises of the U.S. government to the Native people. Today, the marvels of technology afford us the opportunity to observe first hand the continuance of this ignoble tradition. Turns out the breaking of treaties is not just for the history books. It’s happening right now. 

As I write this article, I am witnessing first hand via Facebook Live Native children and elders, water protectors and their allies from around the world being pummeled by Dakota Access Pipeline Security company mercenari es, Morton County police officers, and National Guard soldiers deploying concussion grenades, mace, tear gas, chemical, rubber bullets and water cannons in temperatures below freezing. 

The fight is on in Standing Rock North Dakota - where citizen journalists are struggling to maintain a live feed of events in spite of jamming by drones. The mainstream media appears to be completely void of interest. 

The attacks are brutal. These first people are not militia. They are unarmed men, women and children. 

As I watch the assault of the U.S. government, local law enforcement and company thugs on the most poverty stricken people in the country as they continue to insist on their sovereign right to protect their water and their sacred burial sites, I can see on my computer screen that a fella named Richard B. Spencer is calling for ethnic cleansing and throwing down the Nazi salute at a sizeable meeting in Washington D.C. 

The rain pours down hard tonight in Los Angeles. We’ll need it if we’re going to have enough water to survive. 

The level of impunity regarding the contamination of our most precious resource is astounding. From the lead contaminated waters of Flint to the Enbridge cover up exposed by John Bolenbaugh, it is clear that our water supply is of paramount importance at this time. As Donald Trump continues to appoint those who promise to continue to imperil life on earth, it is more urgent than ever to act. 

This Thanksgiving, I am thinking of the courageous people in Standing Rock North Dakota who are fighting for the right of all of us to have the clean water we need to survive. 

Please take a moment to call the numbers below and voice your concern. We’re in this boat together. Let’s make sure we stay afloat. 

NEED TO KNOW: 

• Here’s a video of the father Sophia Wilansky, a 21-year old girl who is about to lose her arm due to the police attack: 

• Another video distributed by Mark Raffalo on Facebook of Saturday night’s attacks: 

• LIVE FROM STANDING ROCK - CALL THESE NUMBERS AND TAKE A STAND!• ND Office of the Governor: 701-328-2200• Morton County Sheriff's Department: 701-328-8118 & 701-667-3330• ND National Guard: 701-333-2000• ND Governor's office 701.328.2200;• Army Corp of Engineers 202.761.8700;• Amnesty International 212.807.8400

(Jennifer Caldwell is a an actress and an active member of SAG-AFTRA, serving on several committees. She is a published author of short stories and news articles and is a featured contributor to CityWatch. Her column at www.RecessionCafe.wordpress.com is dishing up good deals, recipes and food for thought. Jennifer can be reached at [email protected].  Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/jennifercald - Twitter: @checkingthegate ... And her website: jenniferhcaldwell.com) Photo credit: Stephanie Keith/Reuters

  -cw

PLATKIN ON PLANNING--Cities, like Los Angeles, have no shortage of politically inspired schemes to sandbag good city planning, especially the successful updating of their General Plan. They can: 

• Understaff and sideline the units responsible for maintaining the General Plan.
• Prepare the General Plan’s elements out of sequence.
• Implement the General Plan through new zoning ordinances adopted before the plan is actually updated.
• Neglect monitoring and enacting mid-course corrections to the plan.
• Use old or inaccurate population data to skew the plans’ demographic assumptions.      
• “Forget” to calculate the build-out potential of existing zoning.
• Fail to connect the General Plan process to the City’s operating and capital investment budgets and work programs. 

When cities, like LA, resort to these strategies, the resulting vacuum is filled by the wavering impulses of real estate investors. Because fluctuating interest rates, available capital, tax laws, and changing consumer tastes quickly change, the decisions of real estate speculators also quickly change. When this happens, their short-term penchants substitute for the planning process, and the public then pays a steep, long-term price. 

This is my initial list of such hidden costs, but I have no doubt that City Watch readers will identify other harmful outcomes.  

Consequences of bad, negligent, and delayed city planning in Los Angeles. 

• Corruption. As revealed by the LA Times reporting on illegal campaign contributions for the Sea Breeze apartment complex in the Harbor Gateway area, when city planning land use decisions are determined by real estate speculators, City Hall is rife with corruption. Campaign contributions determine which ambitious projects qualify for building permits, not the General Plan and its implementation through zoning. 

• Traffic Congestion. Auto-centric mega-projects, like Caruso Affiliated’s luxury high-rise at 333 S. LaCienega obtain their approvals by claiming they are transit-oriented developments. But, they are not, and when built, they add to LA’s terrible traffic congestion, in this case at an intersection so gridlocked its local nickname is the Bermuda Triangle. 

• Inequality. Zone Changes, General Plan Amendments, and Height District Changes yield enormous financial benefits for property owners. These gains, however, only generate increased property taxes when the owners demolish existing buildings and replace them with new ones. As for the rest of us, our only dubious benefits are more colorful election flyers and more upmarket places to shop. 

• LA’s housing crisis began in late 1980s, and thirty years later there is no end in sight; homelessness, overcrowding, high rents, and lack of middle-income and affordable housing prevail. But, good planning would tell us where there is the greatest need for new housing, where there is existing planning and zoning capacity for by-right housing construction, where sufficient public services and infrastructure allow for increased population, and where existing affordable and rent stabilized housing has already been lost and the remainder should be preserved. 

• Climate change requires extensive local mitigation and adaptation. The General Plan is the obvious way to plan and monitor such efforts as reducing the generation of Green House Gases, hardening infrastructure, adjusting to long-term drought, converting homes to decentralized rooftop solar electricity and hot water, and building transportation infrastructure for non-automobile modes. 

• Economic development requires a detailed assessment of the city’s work force, market trends, industrial land, and supportive infrastructure, such as the transportation system. But, in LA, economic development only means pitches from the Mayor’s office to attract and serve high-end real estate investors. 

• The continued maintenance of and investment in public services and public infrastructure is essential to Los Angeles. But the General Plan elements for infrastructure and public services date back to the 1960s. Now, a half-century later, the city’s streets are filled with potholes and bursting water mains, sidewalks are crumbling and buckling, and a maze of overhead wires is a disaster waiting to happen. Furthermore, private parcels, which comprise 20 to 40 percent of local communities, have become the preoccupation of City Hall, not the public realm and public improvements that are essential to the city’s residents, employees, and visitors. 

• The lack of accurate, frequently updated data generated by careful General Plan monitoring means that public policy is determined in a vacuum, allowing the well-oiled requests of real estate speculators to prevail. 

• City Hall has incrementally responded to stalled General Plan updates by adopting an incomprehensible mosaic of overlay zones and site-specific approval conditions. In order to appease opponents of discretionary land use decisions, these overlay zones and conditions make reliable plan check and code enforcement impossible. 

• Urban design. Since the mega-projects blessed through the political process, like 8150 Sunset, clash with the scale and character of existing development, they degrade the appearance of a city that is already burdened by unsightly communities, corridors, and buildings. While some of this also results from slip-shod code enforcement, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative could prevent a big part, especially if it can be followed up with the design review of new public and private construction, similar to Beverly Hills. 

• Downward spiral of bad planning. As effective city planning is stymied, City Hall weaves a downward web of self-imposed hardships. Real estate lobbyists and expediters then repeatedly claim that an outdated General Plan warrants parcel level spot-General Plan Amendments, spot-Zone Changes, and spot-Height District Changes. Their unstated assumption is that more permissive zones would have appeared if the ageing plans had already been updated, and, hey, their clients need them now. But, there is no basis for their claims and the precedents they set. In fact, in many communities there has been negligible demographic change or even, like Hollywood, population decline.  When these trends appear, the proper response is to either keep existing zoning in place or in some cases, reductions in permitted planning and zoning, not increases. 

Last, but hardly least, shoddy city planning thwarts City Hall's grandiose plans to transform Los Angeles into a world or global city. Anyone who spends time in London or Paris quickly learns they have wonderful transit and other public services, high design standards, and carefully controlled public and private construction. In contrast, Los Angeles needs far more that 3.9 million people and struggling entertainment and import-export industries to eventually become a city of this caliber.

(Dick Platkin is a former LA City Planner who reports on local planning issues for CityWatch. He is also a supporter of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative [[ http://2preservela.org/faqs/ ]]   and welcomes comments and corrections at [email protected].) 

-cw

EASTSIDER-Last week, Angelenos were greeted with two very different visions of short-term rentals for Los Angeles. On the one hand, there was a press conference at the 8^th & Hope Building, sponsored largely by UniteHERE. That event drew around 70 people who shared their experiences and concerns about where Los Angeles seems to be headed with their proposed short-term rental ordinance. It has seemingly landed in a “dead zone” vacuum created by the City Council. For more on this, take a look at Keeping Neighborhoods First. 

The other vision for Los Angeles started the next day, a tightly controlled international event called Airbnb Open 2016, set at four downtown Theaters, not to mention events all over town including a Festival on Saturday, that had music by Maroon 5, a special screening of LA LA Land and all kinds of other performances. Speakers were as glitzy as you would expect, with a veneer of authority provided by none other than the former U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder (who, one can presume, was well compensated for this event.) 

The juxtaposition of the Press Conference and the Airbnb event tells you a lot, as does the tightly controlled outreach by Airbnb. I mean, they had to spend a zillion dollars on this massive event, international in scope, held all over the city, to tout their “new vision” of being more than simply a house or apartment-renting app. And yet, there was virtually no grand hurrah in local media, no blasting out of “see me, see me” for the wonderful events on TV. So, you have to ask why? 

This was clearly an insider deal, aimed squarely at current supporters of Airbnb and the hosts, designed to show them at their best and dazzle the attendees with hi-profile speakers, even as they announced their new areas of expansion. 

For Airbnb, this is “it” -- the beginnings of the IPO that is going to make them all billionaires, and what better venue than Los Angeles as the model for international everything? To prove I’m not making this up, just read the Wired article from Thursday November 17. There it is, confirmed by Brian Chesky himself. 

I think there were a couple of basic reasons that the event was so “under the radar.” First, Airbnb did not want to risk nasty picketing or negative press in the media -- nothing to take the shine off the prize. Second, the proposed short-term rental ordinance in LA City is not yet final, and while we cynics know that the Mayor and the Council are all bought off (or in), they are loathe to publicly admit they have no interest in an equitable ordinance. Especially after they had just successfully pushed for a bunch of municipal tax measures on the November ballot. It might make them look bad. 

Of course, Airbnb did not totally escape without notice. During the event’s grand finale on Saturday, hundreds of protesters marched at their multiple locations. You can read about it here. Actually, this may be the only place you will read about any protests, because this is Los Angeles, land of glitz and corporate censorship. 

In Europe and Other American Cities, Airbnb Has to Play Nice 

Also under the radar, is the fact that Airbnb has had a lot of pushback from their nicey-nice new age techie public image -- despite paying a lot of money for lawyers, lobbyists, and even buying a few politicians for a fake “advisory board.” In Europe, for example, particularly Paris, Berlin, and Barcelona, much of the populace is not happy and legislation to curb Airbnb’s freewheeling business model abounds. 

While Airbnb has been quick to litigate, as in San Francisco, I should point out that they recently lost that case, which is similar to suits they filed against Anaheim and Santa Monica. Not to mention their litigation problems in New York. 

Other cities, all more interested in their residents than Los Angeles, have also pushed back. For more information, check out a recent, detailed article in CurbedLA.  They took a relatively balanced approach in explaining the history and the two very different sides of the Airbnb tsunami. 

So What’s the Deal in the City of Los Angeles? 

Almost all the articles on Airbnb point out the inherent conflict between their public vision that the entity publicly promotes – that of Airbnb simply being a cool new way to connect “hosts” together with travelers to rent a room or bed in a real community, enhancing the feeling of being in a real neighborhood and experiencing a sense of belonging -- with the reality that the real money in the Airbnb business is in a full time business model. 

The trick is how to merge their “sharing economy” idea of the short-term renting out of a room to make a few bucks versus the business reality of converting houses into permanent “short-term” rentals which, in bulk, can alter or even destroy the character of a neighborhood, turning neighbor against neighbor. 

In Los Angeles, the current state of the law is that short-term rentals in residential areas are illegal, period. However, the LA City Attorney has failed to enforce the law in a manner that now gives new meaning to the phrase “scofflaw.” I covered this in a previous article, “The Feckless Feuer Dilemma - To Enforce Airbnb Law or to Pretend to Enforce Airbnb Law.” 

Well, the jury is back in on that issue and the verdict is just what we thought: LA is up for sale, law or not. C’mon down, not to worry. 

While this fight has been kicking around for a couple of years, and all the insiders like Airbnb and City Hall and the Mayor have known the outcome before there was even a draft, there is still no short-term rental ordinance in place -- even though the Council file on the matter started back in 2014. 

So Why Hasn’t the Ordinance Passed?

I can posit a couple of worthy, underhanded reasons why the ordinance hasn’t already passed. First and foremost, there were two really important dates that had to go by first: the November 8 General Election and the November 7 through December 12 deadlines to file a declaration of intent and nominating petitions for the March 7, 2017 LA Municipal primary election. 

That’s right, the cutoffs for when some incensed citizens might get together and run someone against the incumbents for Mayor, Controller, City Attorney, and Council Districts 1,3,5,7,9,11,13, and 15. And you thought that politicians couldn’t count. 

You see, after the cut-off dates, it largely doesn’t matter what anyone does. With the exception of CD 7, vacated by the vacuous Fuentes and where everyone is running, there are usually very few significant challengers to incumbency in LA City, absent a major scandal or revolt. Since less than 10% of eligible voters are likely to even bother to vote, and close to a majority of them will vote by mail, the election is already locked in for the majority of incumbents. 

The other reason is simple. The City has already sold out, but they don’t want the troops to know that. This is no longer about short-term rentals, which are defined as the rental of a home or portion thereof for less than thirty (30) days. Think about it. As I pointed out in an earlier article, this ordinance is now called the “Home Sharing Ordinance.” 

The other big picture reason that the ordinance hasn’t passed is equally naughty -- while the ordinance is in limbo, entrepreneurial “hosts” can rent out their homes 365 days a year as a commercial business, even though it’s illegal. And the City doesn’t even care, since they’re now getting tax money in a separate deal already in place -- without any ordinance at all! 

Follow the logic. As reported back in July by the LA Times, the City announced a deal with Airbnb whereby LA City will collect hotel taxes on their “short-term” rentals, even though short-term rentals are illegal. Ya gotta love it. Franz Kafka and Albert Camus were optimists. 

Thus, there is no rush for the Airbnb “hosts” to want any ordinance passed. They will never have it this sweet. The Wild Wild West rides again, and nobody gives a darn. Except, of course, those people living in residential neighborhoods who have not cashed in on the Home Sharing market and don’t want it. You know, the people who paid big bucks to live in nice neighborhoods, even as their infrastructure crumbles under the weight of increased traffic, power and water usage, etc. which will not be paid for by anyone. Not to mention those people who have seen their affordable housing morph into permanent vacation rentals in places like Venice Beach. By golly, it’s political perfection. 

A Nagging Question 

Nobody I know has actually seen final language of the agreement between the City and Airbnb over the tax deal, even though I am anecdotally told that the City is even now getting money. Maybe some brave soul will file a Public Records Request to obtain these documents to find out for sure. 

I ask because a question arises in my random, non-attorney mind. If short-term rentals are currently illegal, and the City Officials are deliberately refusing to prosecute that illegality in exchange for money gained from the illegal acts, are they engaging in a criminal conspiracy subject to prosecution? Would the generally blanket immunity for public officials save them? 

Of course we will probably never know, since the odds of the District Attorney actually doing anything about this are right in there with the odds of Donald Trump appointing Loretta Sanchez as Attorney General. 

Still ...

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

@THE GUSS REPORT-I once sat in on humorist Stephanie Miller’s radio show when her guest, pornographer Larry Flynt, was asked, what the difference was between him and televangelist Jimmy Swaggart. Flynt’s response, “He sells his thing and I sell mine,” is as applicable now as ever, especially with all our Thanksgiving discussions only a few days away.

With that in mind, here are some notes for your Thanksgiving consideration. 

To the proverbial baker who does not want to make a cake for an LGBTQ wedding: 

You may find this hard to believe, but gay people are not trying to seduce you. They probably do not find you attractive. They are not trying to change your religious views, if that is the reason why you do not want their business; nor do they want to delegitimize your own marriage. They are simply trying to live their lives as you are living yours. 

It is hard as hell for anyone to be different than the majority, whether that difference is being gay or anything else. Being asked to use your talent to blend ingredients, bake them to perfection and decorate the resulting cake into a thing of beauty does not mean you “approve” of gay marriage, and truth be told, nobody asked for you to approve it. Try not to be crippled by other people pursuing their happiness. 

LBGTQ couples come to your bakery because you are nearby and apparently quite good at baking. So what if it presses your buttons? Bake the cake with joy and deliver it with a smile if, for nothing else, out of professional pride. If you think your God will disapprove (if there is a God) you apparently don’t understand the whole God-concept and the words in Psalm 86:5 speaking about how the Lord is “… abundant in lovingkindness to all.” It applies to all people and, truth be told, all living beings. 

Please don’t come back at me with an opposing Biblical “oh yeah?” I had to look that up on the internet. Bake the cake. Make the money. Get a good Yelp review. Rise above it because it’s the yeast you can do. 

To the LGBTQ couple hoping to get a cake from that baker: 

You learned long before you met your betrothed that the world is often illogical, unfair, uneven and unkind. Someone, apparently including this baker, was raised in a way or developed thoughts in which they feel threatened by how others live. But instead of hating them, why not instead reward another baker with your business because that one respects you and makes as good, if not a better, product? The laws are now in your favor and are becoming ever more that way. 

You are in the right. But sometimes, the best way to be accepted by those who do not accept you is to not necessarily exploit it by suing. Why not look upon them with pity because their vision is so myopic. Why not take a broader vision than they do and understand that, most likely, they do not hate you, but that they are paralyzed by fear of the unfamiliar? By exercising your right to sue, putting them out of business and their employees out of work, whose mind will you change? 

This is why Yelp exists. Praise with a 5-star review the baker who welcomes and appreciates you, and give a 1-star review to the one who didn’t, and explain why. Maybe turn the other cheek, as it were. 

On the issue of abortion: 

We can all agree that it is one of the most difficult decisions a woman may ever make. Depending on your belief system, it is somewhere between terminating a life and terminating a potential life, and there is nothing to celebrate in that. Ultimately, it is a yes or no decision and, anatomy being what it is, nobody has a greater overall stake in the decision than the woman. Those who are pro-choice should try to understand that those who are pro-life might feel that the fetus has an equal if not bigger stake in the decision. Those who are pro-life should understand that the decision does, and can only, belong to the woman, and that making it less accessible is less productive than preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. We will never all agree on where sustainable life begins, but it is somewhere therein. 

On the issue of the U.S. Supreme Court: 

There is a great chart on Wikipedia showing the liberal/moderate/conservative balance of the SCOTUS. With the death of Antonin Scalia less than a year ago, the conservative bent presently has Roberts, Alito and Thomas remaining, with Kennedy in the middle; the liberal bent has Breyer, Bader-Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor. (The chart, made at Berkeley, lists Kennedy as moderately conservative, but he is in fact moderately liberal.) 

If ever there is a place for balance, it is here, especially in an era where SCOTUS is increasingly accused of legislating from the bench, when the separation of powers dictates that legislating be done by the Legislative Branch, that is, Congress. Both sides should understand the others’ fear of a 5-3-1, or an even more unbalanced court. The pendulum always swings, and a 4-4-1 balance is always a great idea. 

As for myself, I spend a great deal of my life advocating for animals and, therefore, have a lot of friends in the vegan, vegetarian and humane advocacy universe. The world has always, and probably always will, exploit animals, the horrors of which I will spare you in this column today. But please Google, as a favor to me, the phrases factory farming, vivisection, what “No Kill” really means and dog meat festival so you are not fully detached from the brutal realities of their lives. It is my hope that we always move toward less animal exploitation, and treat them all better while they are alive. 

The whole point of today’s article is simply this: try to at least see the other’s side. It almost always helps. 

Have a great holiday.

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a contributor to CityWatchLA, KFI AM-640 and Huffington Post. Follow him on Twitter @TheGussReport. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

MY TURN-With half the country cheering and the other half expecting Armageddon any minute, these are strange times. I have read many comments asking how we can we celebrate Thanksgiving with the country in chaos. 

As Americans, how can we not celebrate Thanksgiving? Regardless of our political preferences we still live in the best country in the world. Each and every one of us can find something to be thankful for -- be it good health, family and friends, etc., etc., etc. Before you accuse me of having a "Pollyanna" attitude, let's be realistic. 

This last election has a silver lining: It shows how important it is to vote. The people who stayed home have no right to complain about the results. Those who put their heart and soul into promoting their candidates and/or initiatives and lost have the right to have a pity party, at least for a short while.

Perhaps now, more people will be motivated get involved in knowing what the government can and cannot do. 

Yes, the Electoral College can skewer the election. Our Founding Fathers were not into Democracy. They figured the great unwashed didn't have the knowledge to choose wisely. They were snobs! In their wildest imagination they couldn't dream of how this country would look in the 21st Century. 

It doesn't matter how many people sign a petition to get rid of the Electoral College, or if our Senator tries to put forward a bill to do that…it won't change this election. Donald J. Trump will be the President for the next four years, unless he decides that having the press follow him everywhere he goes and not being able to make money is too oppressive and resigns. The sooner everyone faces this fact, the better. 

There is much discussion about “Fake News” which has become so widespread that it deserves to be capitalized. There is talk about whether it also helped skewer the election results. Facebook President, Mark Zuckerman is changing the way his portal treats certain news outlets by cancelling identifiable sites. He has said, however, that Facebook users have an obligation to notify the company if they see Fake News. 

Certainly the preponderance of Fake News has come from conservative and "Alt-Right" sources. But the left has participated in the same game either by accident or on purpose. And they are still doing it. 

A good example: I was getting ready to write this article when I received one of those "pass along this message to twenty of your friends” messages. Supposedly, it was advice from the "Oracle of Omaha,” Warren Buffet. It was pretty interesting and since my source was very reputable I was going to include it in this article. 

Even though CW is devoted primarily to opinions on the news, I try to fact check before I include something from a third party. This supposed message outlined ten ways to make Congress more efficient and productive. Warren Buffet is a very practical man but the ten points sounded too good to be realistic. I turned to his website which lists many of his more famous quotes and to Snopes.com, which is a very reliable neutral fact check site. 

Whoever put this list together, took his quote from an interview in July 2011 on how to solve the national debt. According to Snopes, "It was during that exchange that the Oracle of Omaha made his now famous statement about rendering ineligible for re-election all sitting members of Congress whenever the deficit exceeded 3% of gross domestic product. 

"So yes, it's true that one of the most respected businessmen of modern times did indeed voice the quote now widely ascribed to him in various e-mailed forwards, although his remark was more in the nature of a wry commentary on the workings of Congress than a serious proposal for tackling the budget deficit. 

"The rest of the lengthier e-mail in circulation has nothing to do with Warren Buffett. What is presented as the ‘Congressional Reform Act of 2011’ began circulating on the Internet in October 2009 as the ‘Congressional Reform Act of 2009.’ In a nutshell, what is presented as a proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution isn't something that has been put forward by any member of Congress and thus is nothing more than a bit of Internet-based politicking." 

So when it comes to getting news from social media -- if it sounds too ridiculous or too good to be true, it probably is. 

I hope the Democratic minority in Congress doesn't act like the Republican majority under President Obama that swore to make Obama a one-term President by blocking everything he wanted. Revenge is no way to run a country. The mission should be to compromise on issues that will help the American people and to fight those things that will have a disproportionate negative effect on the majority of Americans. If you fight everything then nothing becomes important. 

The office of the President deserves respect. President-elect Trump was very disrespectful of President Obama. Remember what First Lady Michelle Obama said: "When they go low, we go high." We are just going to have to make the best out of a frightening situation. We also have to make sure that we don't tolerate disrespect from others -- including friends and family. 

We know that the President-elect is very competitive and hates to lose. He might just surprise us with some effective governance. As for most of us who live in California...we are insular. We don't relate, for the most part, to that “Middle America,” that seems to have a disproportionate influence on our political agenda. 

We are fortunate that our economy is growing and California has led the country with many reforms. But perhaps we made a mistake by being a little arrogant; we need to look outside our own "bubble.” House Speaker Paul Ryan, has a telephone survey on Obamacare. Check out his website for voting directions. Get involved and pay attention to what our congressional representatives are doing; attend their meetings locally and equally important, know what our local government is doing. Educate yourselves as to how we all can make this country better. 

No, ladies and gentlemen, Armageddon is not upon us...at least not yet! A suggestion for your Thanksgiving Dinner: Trump supporters, don't gloat…and Clinton supporters, don't whine. Both sides have much for which to be grateful. 

As always comments welcome.

(Denyse Selesnick is a CityWatch columnist. She is a former publisher/journalist/international event organizer. Denyse can be reached at: [email protected]) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Koretz’ website includes photos of the councilmember celebrating the Expo Line’s opening. The site touts Koretz’ time on the Expo Construction Authority Board: “Councilmember Koretz served first as an alternate board member and then as a full board member of this body until 2015. He served on this body through the completion of Phase 1 of this project and through most of the construction for Phase 2, much of which travels through Council District 5.” 

But what Paul Koretz has delivered is the worst section of the Expo Line.

Koretz’ section has a mile-long gap in the bike path. Koretz’ section has kids walking in the street because of a missing sidewalk between the Palms Station and Lycée Français High School. Koretz’ section has an at-grade crossing at Overland Avenue that is worsening gridlock and leading to crashes that prompted neighbors to create a “Stop the Wrecks on Overland” Facebook page.

Koretz takes no responsibility for Expo’s flaws – flaws that were clear when he was a member of the Expo Board. At last night’s Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association meeting, he said “we kind of knew this would be a disaster.” For that, Kortez blames his predecessor. “Unfortunately, my election was kind of being too late to the party. The previous councilmember really was there when all of the negotiations were happening. And … at least regarding the Expo, I don’t think he did enough to protect the community.”

But Councilmember Koretz shouldn’t get off the hook so easily: he could have resisted widening Overland and he could have pushed for grade separation. Indeed, before he took office, the city of Los Angeles Department of Transportation wrote to Expo opposing the misguided widening – which was designed to dodge Metro’s grade crossing policy that required grade separation based on the per-lane traffic count without widening. Councilmember Koretz could have tried to stop it. He didn’t.

Now, Councilmember Koretz is claiming credit ($300,000 of taxpayer money credit) for reducing wheel squeal noise as the train passes Cheviot Hills. At last night’s meeting, Koretz spoke on Expo line “problems” including “an unanticipated screech of the wheels” stating: “We’ve been trying to figure out different ways to address that.…. So, we’ve actually gotten the Expo Board to approve a $300,000 expenditure to bring a huge wheel-grinding machine.”

But the wheel screech/squeal was not “unanticipated.” Indeed, the staff report [PDF] on the wheel-grinding motion says, “The FEIR indicated that wheel squeal was possible in specific curves along the alignment based on the curvature of the rail alignment. …. Rail grinding has been identified as a method to correct these track gauge variations in order to mitigate the wheel squeal.”

Expo’s Council District 5 flaws will cost millions to fix. If Paul Koretz wants credit for the good, he must take responsibility for the bad.

(Jonathan Weiss practices law, lives in Cheviot Hills, and served as an appointed representative to the L.A. City Bicycle Advisory Committee between 2009 and 2016. He is also a boardmember of Streetsblog L.A.’s parent nonprofit, the California Streets Initiative.) Photo Credit (top): Jonathan Weiss; (bottom) LA.Streets.blog

-cw

TRANSIT TALK-We can, without any hesitation, claim that Los Angeles County has "given its all" with respect to spending on its own transportation and infrastructure.  In addition to a host of water/sewage tax and bond proposals, LA County has over the years raised its sales tax FOUR times to pay for projects that should have been done decades ago. 

To its credit, Metro (or the MTA, if you wish to call it that) has worked with elected officials to focus on efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and operational soundness in its operations.  As much as many have raised a concern with Measure M (the most recent sales tax just passed) not going far enough, or being too expensive, it DID devote a lot of money towards ensuring operational costs. 

In other words, the risks of "build, build, build" without wondering how we were going to keep our roads and rails in good working order has been addressed--if not entirely, then at least a solid step forward.  And for those complaining about not having enough rail cars ... well, Metro and the manufacturers are going the fastest they can. 

And for those of you STILL reporting that no one will use these rail lines, perhaps you should ride the Expo Line to a Rams game or on a Sunday evening. 

But there are immediate and long-term gaps for us to fill in--in our cities, and in our counties, and in our state: 

1) Pass the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative! 

Isn't it only reasonable and pragmatic to consider Transportation Funding to be the equivalent of "income" and Planning/Development to be the equivalent of "spending"? 

Infrastructure, be it roads/rail, or electrical grid, or cell phone grid, or sewage pipes, etc. is the component on which we can all live in our city, county, and/or state.  Infrastructure is the critical lifeblood of our Economy, our Environment, and our Quality of Life.   

And Planning is the spending aspect of its Transportation counterpart. 

The Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, which we will vote on this spring, allows us to "live within our means" with respect to honoring legal Community Plans, prevents big developers from using their pet consultants to shimmy and lie their way through the Planning process, and focuses on what makes new housing both affordable and livable. 

Here's a hint, for all those who want Affordable Housing, Urban Infill, Smart Development, Mixed-Use Development, etc.:  unless they're luxury apartments/condos, a 2-3 story project creates homes, but a 5-20+ story project is just that...a "project" where people will live only if they've nowhere else cheaper to go to. 

2) Fix the Damned Sidewalks! 

Even with the passage of Measure M, we STILL don't have the funds to fix the City of LA's sidewalks in a timely fashion.  If anyone reading this is okey-dokey with a 20-30 year timeframe, then they must be as pleased as punch. 

But for the rest of us, a 5-7 year timeframe is more appropriate, and why developers, City budget planners and the rest of us all don't work together to expedite the resolution of this nightmare defies belief.   

Here's a hint, though, for all those who want to fix our sidewalks just like we did the 405 HOV Lanes and other major freeway projects:  our pension nightmare is eating up 20%--and going higher--of our City's budget.  Fix and confront that painful problem, and we can better assure that our sidewalks will be built and fixed in our lifetime. 

And don't elect anyone this spring to the City Council unless they promise to fix our sidewalks in a 5-7 year timeframe.  This problem is NOT resolved! 

3) Fill the gaps in our freeways! 

Like it or not, our freeways will be a critical part of our mobility for decades to come.  Part of Measure M includes widening the I-5 to the I-710 freeway, and a host of other freeway fixes from the ports to the borders of our county. 

And that's a good thing, as well as the need to enhance and improve our freeway intersections. 

But the big fixes are yet to come--and they involve getting out of the cult of "rail only". 

One big fix includes the establishment of a freeway along the La Cienega corridor from LAX to the 10 freeway--this would enhance north-south mobility and traffic in the Westside. 

The other big fix:  L.A. own Big Dig.  An upgrade of the east-west chokepoint of the I-10 between the I-110 and East Los Angeles.  Some of it might be underground, and some of it might be on the surface or elevated.   

But mark my words:  someday, somehow, and some time in the future, the freeway infrastructure of Downtown LA will need an upgrade from the 1950's...particularly because Downtown LA is no longer an economic sinkhole but an increasingly vibrant part of the economic powerhouse of LA City and County. 

4) Fill the gaps in our rail systems! 

Considering how much rail planning and building and spending we're doing, this may seem pretty strange to bring up.  But there ARE going to be glaring gaps in our rail systems, and we can either confront them now or face a lot of angry voters in the future. 

a) The Harbor Subdivision Rail Right of Way should be more than a cute bikeway.  It should be extended from the Crenshaw/LAX Light Rail Line from Inglewood to the Blue Line to the Eastside Gold Line and Union Station.  It will be the critical LAX-to-Downtown that will relieve both freeway pressure and rail congestion on the Blue, Crenshaw and Expo Lines, and will be one of the most heavily-ridden lines in LA County. 

b) Connect the Norwalk Metrolink station to MetroRail via an eastern extension of the Green Line. And consider having Orange and Riverside Counties help share the costs, because commuters from those counties will almost certainly benefit. 

c) Coordinate the Metrolink and Eastside Gold Line Extension projects.  What the heck is Metrolink and Metro Rail doing not ensuring easy and convenient access from one system to the other? 

d) Build the Anaheim to Las Vegas rail line.  This might be a fix that is done directly, or via the High Speed Rail Line and Desert XPress projects that connect at Victorville, but it's needed. 

e) Build the doggone South Bay Green Line Extension and connect it to the Blue Line--must commuters have to use the 405 South Bay curve for everything? 

f) Work with Orange County to create 2-3 commuter line alternatives to allow access from LA to/from Orange County--again...must we use the 405 freeway for everything? 

So here we are--we're spending, and we're building, and we're planning. 

And now that we've put our money where our collective mouth is, we have every right to demand that our Sacramento and Washington representatives come through for us.  Or they're gone, to be replaced with those who WILL come through for us. 

We've got to control our planning and development, and we've got to raise our expectations of what our state and nation can do for us with our trusted taxpayer dollars/investments. 

To do no less makes no sense.  Certainly, no Common Sense.

(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 is co-chair of the CD11Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at  [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Dr. Alpern.)

PUBLIC RIGHT TO KNOW-Accountability and transparency in government starts with streaming your public meetings in real time and having them posted online within 24 hours of the meeting’s end. 

In 2016 -- soon to be 2017 -- the Los Angeles Police Commission is still not live streaming or posting their meetings within 24 hours. Yet, by their comments, the commissioners themselves would have you believe that both accountability and transparency are their top priorities. But it can’t be when they can’t even manage to use any of their power or the millions of dollars raised from the public via taxes to do one very simple task. 

There is no reason at all why Angelenos should not be able to turn on LA Channel 35 and watch the police commission meetings or go online and watch them live from a computer or from their mobile phones. I would much rather see their meetings than another propaganda episode of “Inside the LAPD.” The fact you can call in and listen to the meetings via phone (when they bother to turn on the audio) seems to be a secret and isn’t even promoted to the public by the commission. At the end of the day, it shouldn’t take complaining publicly via social media for over 72 hours for them to be posted online. It just shouldn’t. 

We know that the City, Los Angeles Police Department and commission are not quite as technically challenged as they would have the public believe because, even though they haven’t uttered a word about it publicly, they commissioned and paid for a mobile app to allegedly aide them in their accountability and transparency efforts. It’s just that they’re keeping it a secret for now. 

Unlike the LAPD’s iWatch app, which was announced with much fanfare when asking the public to “say something if you saw something,” the Inspector General’s app is said to be the first of its kind in this country by allowing the public to file complaints or compliments about Los Angeles police officers that go directly to the police commission’s Office of the Inspector General. This might seem particularly useful in light of the LAPD’s repeated failure to find any evidence of “biased policing” or racial profiling among the thousands of allegations made against its officers. Yes, that part. 

The police commission has the money and the means but apparently not the will (or the needed push from Mayor Eric Garcetti) to open their meetings up to a wider audience of Angelenos who may be interested in what is happening with their police department but find it impossible to attend their Tuesday 9:30 a.m. meetings in downtown Los Angeles. 

If the Los Angeles Police Commission can’t manage to make their meetings reasonably accessible to everyone and in a timely manner, what faith should the public really have in their capabilities to do anything else as it relates to transparency or accountability with Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck and the LAPD? 

The Los Angeles Police Commission talks a big game on transparency and accountability when it comes to the LAPD but fails miserably at its own. And that needs to change.

(Jasmyne A. Cannick lives in Los Angeles and is a frequent commentator on local and national politics, social and race issues. Cannick is an occasional contributor to CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

A City Council and mayoral plan to address LA’s homeless emergency with fast-built homeless housing on 12 parcels of city land has turned into a farce, with developers this week proposing everything from “affordable” to luxury housing — but not much homeless housing.

In a report quietly released Wednesday by the LA City Administrative Officer — the same day that a federal study found LA leads the U.S. in chronically homeless — developers proposed only 500 units of housing, total. And only a modest portion of it is earmarked for the homeless. 

City leaders, faced with opposition from residential and business areas where the “homeless housing” was envisioned, have been quietly backing away from their own homeless housing concept for weeks.

City Hall had identified public land in West LA, Westchester, Lincoln Heights, Venice, South LA, Sylmar and San Pedro, often near schools, churches, parks and homes.

The Los Angeles Times reported in October that elected leaders and city officials “spent months developing plans for converting as many as 12 city-owned sites into housing for the city’s homeless residents.”

No longer, it seems.

Behind the scenes, city officials quietly turned their emergency homeless housing initiative into the vaguely worded “Affordable Housing Opportunities Sites” plan. The proposal released yesterday even suggests “market rate housing” — luxury housing — on some city land.

The famously slow-moving City Council might be able to house more homeless, and do it faster, by tapping the empty Parker Center police headquarters not far from their own offices at City Hall.

City Hall’s much watered-down new concept is set to be discussed at a hearing today. According to the  recommendations, two of the 12 city parcels — closed-down fire stations in San Pedro and Westchester — should be sold and the money placed in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

It was only weeks ago that the LA Times reported City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana was overseeing “the homeless housing initiative,” which was “aimed at building permanent supportive housing — the kind that includes substance abuse counseling or other services.”

But the widely awaited report suggests that elected officials are enthused about erecting homeless housing only at one locale — a city-owned traffic island in South Los Angeles adjacent to the 110 and 105 freeways.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, LA is home to nearly 13,000 chronically homeless — and 95 percent of them live outdoors in cars, tents and encampments.

(Patrick Range McDonald writes for 2PreserveLA.  Check it out. See if you don’t agree it will help end buying favors at City Hall.)

-cw

IMMIGRATION ECONOMICS-During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump famously promised to deport all of America’s approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants. While Trump has since dialed back his rhetoric, the president-elect promised in a recent interview to immediately deport the two to three million immigrants with criminal records before he would “make a determination” about everyone else. Trump has also, of course, promised to dramatically improve the American economy. But can that latter promise can be made by still keeping the first? 

Probably not, according to a new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which serves as a reminder that those two oaths might be at odds with each other. In the research, economists Ryan Edwards and Francesc Ortega break down the economic contributions of unauthorized workers across different industries, while also exploring how mass deportations would affect those industries and looking at the effects of legalization. Undocumented immigrants constitute 4.9 percent of the American workforce. Some industries rely more heavily on these workers. In agriculture, for example, illegal immigrants represent 18 percent of the workforce. In construction, they constitute 13 percent; 10 percent in leisure and hospitality. 

If all those workers were to disappear, gross domestic product (GDP) would go down by about 3 percent (that’s $5 trillion) over a 10-year period. “Once capital has adjusted, value-added in Agriculture, Construction and Leisure and hospitality would fall by 8–9%,” Edwards and Ortega write. “However, the largest losses in dollars would take place in Manufacturing, Wholesale and retail trade, Finance and Leisure and hospitality.” 

Donald Trump’s Immigration Policy Is Already Here.  And as for the opposite counterfactual, the one in which the country’s undocumented workforce was suddenly legalized? The authors find that legalization would increase private-sector GDP by about 0.5 percent, with larger gains (anywhere from 1.1 percent to 1.9 percent) in leisure and hospitality, construction, and agriculture. 

Edwards and Ortega’s conclusions are consistent with past research, which overwhelmingly concludes that immigration is good for the economy at large, and that legalizing undocumented workers is beneficial to both the economy and native workers. 

Of course, it’s likely immigration has also harmed some American employees, in particular low-skilled workers in direct competition with immigrants. While this has emerged as a bit of a hot-button issue in the economics field recently, the best research on the topic suggests that, at least in the short run, an influx of immigrants does reduce the wages of low-skilled (defined as those without a high school degree) native workers. Low-skill black men are particularly vulnerable to these effects. In other words, immigration is a lot like free trade: It’s good for most people, but not every single person. 

There are approximately 11 million unauthorized workers in the United States today, eight million of whom are in the U.S. labor force, making meaningful contributions to the country’s economy. This latest research is a timely reminder that mass deportation, in addition to being an expensive proposition, could be harmful to the economy.

(Dwyer Gunn is a journalist who is a contributing writer at Pacific Standard  … where this piece originated.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID, PART III-Corruptionism destroys the economy. Speaking on Meet the Press on Sunday morning, November 20, 2016, political analyst David Frum warned that the greatest present danger to the economy comes from corruptionism. Basically, no one cared. 

My response to Mr. Frum is, “Welcome to LA, citadel of corruptionism.” I am marking my calendar for eighteen months from now to see if Mr. Frum’s prediction comes true: that in early 2018, the media will be aghast at the rampant corruptionism flowing from the Trump Administration. While Mr. Frum may be absolutely accurate about the corruption soon to be unleashed in the nation’s capital, it is not clear that anyone will care. 

In Washington, the only thing which is truly bipartisan is corruption. Some of us remember when Senator Leahy complained about the war profiteering in Iraq. Vice President Cheney told him to “go f–k yourself.” Did anyone step forward to stop the vast corruptionism back then or did all of Washington fall in line behind Cheney? When speaking about it years later on the Dennis Miller radio show, Cheney remarked, “You'd be surprised how many people liked that,” then added, “It’s sort of the best thing I ever did.” 

Why is Corruptionism Bad for the Citizenry? 

For a candidate who ran on “It’s the Economy, Stupid” against a candidate who felt that the “Status Quo is OK,” corruptionism is a gigantic threat. Let there be no mistake: Trump’s “Make America Great Again” theme pandered to the racists and the bigots and the xenophobes, but his core promise was to fix the economy. He proclaimed there would be a 4% growth -- nay 6% growth -- rather than the 2% current growth rate. The reason to throw out all the illegal Mexicans wasn’t just because he thought that, with but a few exceptions, they were rapists and criminals, but that they were taking American jobs. Trump’s xenophobic attack on NAFTA was to make America great again by bringing jobs back to our shores. 

Corruption by definition is the diversion of resources away from the honest people in order to line the pockets of those who have the power to loot. The ways of corruptionism are as vast as human ingenuity itself, but one principle holds true: Corruption always steals billions of dollars from the productive segment of society in order to enrich the criminal element. 

If Mr. Frum is correct, over the next several months, President Trump will form a government in which businessmen, foreign and domestic, will know the “point men” in the Trump Administration who will dole out favors from the Administration. This modus operandus is not new to Washington as we have seen with the no bid contracts given to Halliburton during the era of Iraq War Profiteering.

Like Politics, Corruptionism is Local 

Just as all politics is said to be local, corruptionism is also local. Just as the Trump Administration has an affirmative duty to employ sound macro-economics to protect the nation’s economy from destructive forces, our local government has a similar duty. But the City of Los Angeles has failed miserably. 

There is a reason Family Millennials are fleeing Los Angeles and that Los Angeles has lost more employers than any other urban area. There is a reason that Los Angeles has the worst traffic congestion in both the United States and Europe, despite spending billions of dollars on subways and light rail. There is a reason that the rest of Los Angeles’ infrastructure is crumbling and our water mains are constantly bursting. There is a reason that people are needlessly dying because we have a truncated paramedic force and why the Police Protective League has started assailing the mayor for under-funding the LAPD. 

Mediaeval Feudalism is Alive in Well in Los Angeles 

For over a decade, Los Angeles has been run like a 13^th Century feudal enclave where the Prince rules by divine right and all his vassals are allowed to be absolute lords and masters of their fiefdoms (council districts) -- provided they maintain their fealty to Prince Garcetti. 

Under the Garcetti System, each Lord is guaranteed absolute and unanimous support by all the other Lords for whatever deal he makes with a real estate developer. Without the guarantee of unanimous support, the councilmembers could not be making any deal they wished with any developer. 

Let’s look at Garcetti’s gift of $17.4 Million to his favorite developer, CIM Group, for its project at 5929 Sunset Boulevard. As this CW article pointed out, LA Weekly had termed CIM Group as Los Angeles’s richest slum lord, yet that did not stop millions of dollars from flowing to CIM Group without any opposition from the LA City Council. The 23-story tower was constructed in violation of a court order without any council opposition.   

Are we to believe that no other councilmember thought that there were better uses of city revenue than to give tens of millions of dollars to LA’s richest slum lord? It did not matter what any other councilman thought since they were all obligated to approve the project with all its corrupt strings because that is what the Lord of Fiefdom CD 13 wanted. 

When the Lady of Fiefdom CD 9, Jan Perry, wanted hundreds of millions of tax dollars for the downtown hotels, all the councilmembers approved. According to the LA Times, in May 2011, the projected cost to the City was $640 million. 

Play Ostrich and Sick Your Head in the Sand 

No one wants to hear how the feudal organization called the Los Angeles City Council throws the doors wide open to corruptionism. Apparently, no one in LA has ever heard of Lord Acton’s maxim that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” No one, least of all the District Attorney, wants to look at a system whereby all councilmembers have to support all projects in another fiefdom -- including the gifts totaling billions of public funds -- because the Lord or Lady of each fiefdom is the absolute ruler within his or her realm. 

With the LA Times’ expose of the bribery in connection with the Sea Breeze Project in fiefdom CD 15, however, the peasants may become unruly. They just might maybe able to begin to discern a connection between City Council’s unanimous voting and corruption. What would Los Angeles be like if a councilmember could not guarantee approval of each and every behind-the-scenes deal that he or she made with developers? 

The City is Above the Law 

With the Sea Breeze revelations and the advent of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative (which is aimed to stop Spot Zoning,) a major form of developer corruption at City Hall is being revealed. Thus the Prince and his vassals are in a panic. But, not to worry. The courts are riding to the rescue – ready to provide the glue that holds together the Los Angeles City council’s Vote Trading Agreement which requires each councilmember to approve every project in another’s fiefdom. 

This vote trading arrangement is why Councilmember Paul Krekorian can guarantee developers that they can trash Valley Village with impunity. Not a single councilmember had the courage to register even a protest vote against the wanton and unnecessary destruction of Marilyn Monroe’s Valley Village home.  

Since rational people know that a group of 15 human beings cannot unanimously agree on thousands of consecutive votes without the “I’ll Scratch Your Back if You Scratch My Back” vote trading agreement, Judge Fruin has initially ruled that the Los Angeles City Council’s voting procedures are above the law. According to Judge Fruin’s Tuesday, August 23, 2016 tentative decision in the SaveValleyVillage Case (#BS 160608), the courts, or at least his courtroom, will no longer question the City Council’s actions. Why? Because its behavior is “Non-Justiciable.” And, like the City has asserted, “In short, the judicial branch of government is not the overseer of the other two.” 

Since the probability that the 99.9% unanimous voting we see at LA City Council could only occur by pure chance is less than once-in-infinity, one can see the need for the courts to hold that City Council’s conduct is non-justiciable. After all, how else can all these prerogatives of the Lords and Ladies and the Prince Himself be protected from the serfs’ complaints? 

For Angelenos, the idea of perpetual and eternal unanimity seems to be the natural order of things, kind of like King James I of England and his Divine Right of Kings theory. Now, it seems that the courts are set to support this James I approach to government. Another politician who attempted this type of absolute rule was Richard Nixon when he declared during Watergate, “If the President does it, it is legal.” 

Almost 45 years after Watergate, we have a California judge echoing that same doctrine – the government’s behavior is non-justiciable.

(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles Attorney. He can be reached at [email protected]. Abrams’ Views are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

DEEGAN ON CALIFORNIA-Positioned at the intersection of two dreams – the legalization of marijuana that came true, and the abolition of the death penalty, that did not -- Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom has a lot to help him if he wants to run for Governor in 2018. 

Dreams of getting stoned, but not killed, became only halfway true for Californians on Election Day, when statewide voters approved the voluntary inhalation of dope for pleasure seekers, but reaffirmed the mandatory lethal injection of drugs for certain criminals. You can have the freedom to fill your lungs with the marijuana smoke and enjoy the buzz, but still cannot escape having your veins filled with poison if you are sentenced to death. 

Newsom emphatically supported the legalization of marijuana (Prop 64) and advocated for the abolition of the death penalty (Prop 62). His roles are significant because he was the chair of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana; he maintained a continued stance against the death penalty (prop 62). This duality places him at the forefront of two huge social issues in the state: marijuana and the death penalty. 

Whoever sits in the governor’s chair the next time around will have to deal with the ramifications of legalizing marijuana and the creation of what may turn into a multi-billion dollar industry and a huge new state tax base.  The new governor will also have to face the decades-old struggle to eliminate the death penalty. 

Marijuana use and possession used to be a fast-track to jail. With the approval of Proposition 64, anyone over 21 years old can use and grow marijuana for personal use. But suddenly the posture of federal law enforcement and the beliefs of judges yet-to-be-appointed to federal courts may turn into challenges to the freedom of marijuana possession, cultivation and consumption, since it is still a federal offense. 

Being a blue state in a red universe could help blunt what may be a coming storm for our next wave of political leaders, which means someone like Newsom could have an advantage in the gubernatorial race with his positions on decriminalization of marijuana and abolishing the current mandatory death penalty. He’s clearly a leader on the left. 

Proposition 62, the death penalty proposition, if it had passed, would have repealed the death penalty and replaced it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. It was defeated by an almost eight point margin, so this could be called a solid defeat, indicating that voters, at least for now, want the death penalty to stay. That’s bad news for the 750 people facing execution in California and their friends and families, especially since Prop 66 appears to be passing, which will mean speeding up the appeals process for those on death row with the objective of hastening decisions about executions. That measure is ahead by a slim margin -- currently 261,000 votes, with nearly four million vote-by-mail ballots still to be counted. The final certification by the Secretary of State on December 16 may be affected. 

So with weed, what was once bad became good, and with the choice of life imprisonment or death row, what was bad stayed bad. 

Thousands of people are still jailed because they got caught smoking pot years ago. Newsom has been outspoken in wanting to remedy this, saying, “What we cannot do is continue sweeping the problem under the rug by sending non-violent offenders to prison. Too many men and women are in jail because of drug addiction. We should focus on rebuilding families by keeping people out of the criminal justice system and instead getting them the help they need so they can return to a productive life. Drug policy in California and across the country has missed the mark. Now’s the time to rethink our approach and get it right.” 

The freedom to live the lifestyle we want, within legal limits, and to be free of execution for very serious crimes when alternatives like life imprisonment exist, are issues everyone should be concerned with in this “through the looking glass” political environment that now rules. Finding the right leaders is always important; being sure that our potential leaders are on the right side of the issues is critically important. 

The races for 2018 (Congressional, Governor and possibly Senator) have already begun for anyone that wants California to remain a golden state. Is Newsom the future? He’s someone that’s in the running.

(Tim Deegan is a long-time resident and community leader in the Miracle Mile, who has served as board chair at the Mid City West Community Council and on the board of the Miracle Mile Civic Coalition. Tim can be reached at [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

CALWATCHDOG--If Donald Trump aims to significantly reduce the presence of undocumented and unlawful immigrants in California, he will face staunch opposition. From the municipal to statewide level, officials have come out strongly against the prospect of stronger enforcement and deportation.

“Secretary of State Alex Padilla criticized the choice of Kris Kobach [as one of Trump’s new immigration transition team members], who holds the same position in Kansas as Padilla, as counter to Trump’s call for unity,” according to the Los Angeles Times. “Kobach advised the incoming president on immigration issues during the campaign, and helped draft the Arizona legislation that required immigration status checks during traffic stops.”

Excoriating Kobach for a “pattern of supporting racist, anti-immigrant policies including voter suppression and racial profiling laws,” Padilla warned in a written statement that Trump’s choice “sends a deeply troubling message that telegraphs an imminent assault on our collective voting rights and civil rights,” the paper added.

Trump’s push to intensify the deportation regimen pursued by President Obama has sent California activists into crisis mode, inspiring an ironic call among some for the undocumented to edge back into the metaphorical shadows to avoid exposing themselves to increased federal scrutiny. One such potential pitfall is the so-called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, designed to help exempt young children from facing penalties older unlawful entrants have often faced.

Resistance strategies 

DACA “has allowed 750,000 young people who came to the U.S. illegally to continue working and studying in this country,” the San Jose Mercury News recalled. “Immigration activists from the Central Coast believe, because DACA was an executive action, it would be an easy immigration program for Trump to end.”

“In light of the demand, several community organizations held a news conference in Salinas Monday to urge calm among immigrant communities and to announce a series of forums in the next few days to answer questions, assuage concerns and urge people to be ready for what’s to come ­– whatever that is.”

Amid likely tectonic shifts in the policy landscape, California police have not necessarily lined up behind stiffer enforcement measures. Officials in so-called sanctuary cities have warned that a concerted federal push to purge their neighborhoods of undocumented residents would be met with resistance. “Democratic mayors of major U.S. cities that have long had cool relationships with federal immigration officials say they will do all they can to protect residents from deportation, despite President-elect Donald Trump’s vows to withhold potentially millions of dollars in taxpayer money if they do not cooperate,” the Associated Press reported.

Letter of the law

But some law enforcement agencies have staked out a cautious position based on the idea that their jurisdiction and responsibilities are simply limited. Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck (photo at top), for instance, avowed that “I don’t intend on doing anything different,” as the Orange County Register noted. “We are not going to engage in law enforcement activities solely based on somebody’s immigration status. We are not going to work in conjunction with Homeland Security on deportation efforts. That is not our job, nor will I make it our job.”

In fact, Beck and chiefs like him have the law on their side. “Because states and cities can’t be required to enforce federal law — and there’s no U.S. requirement that police ask about a person’s immigration status — it’s likely that any Trump effort to crack down on sanctuary cities would focus on those that refuse to comply with ICE requests,” the AP added, citing Roy Beck, CEO of NumbersUSA.

On the political side, Senator-elect Kamala Harris made a point to establish herself as one of Trump’s most powerful opponents on immigration. For her first public appearance after the election, she chose an LA activist group’s headquarters. “Harris has followed the appearance up with a post on the website Medium saying she wanted ‘every immigrant family in this country  —  as well as the new Trump administration – to know exactly where I stood on immigration reform,’” according to McClatchy. “Harris has an online petition to support immigrants and suggested California would lead the resistance to Trump.”

(James Poulos blogs at CalWatchdog ... where this piece was first posted.)

-cw

EXPOSED--On March 17, when California High-Speed Rail Authority Chairman Dan Richard gave his word to the residents of Pacoima, Sylmar, San Fernando, Santa Clarita and surrounding areas that their communities were no longer in the path of the bullet train’s high speed approach into Burbank from Palmdale, there was an outpouring of relief and gratitude.  

“Thank you Lord for saving Sylmar, San Fernando, and Pacoima,” one woman said at a community meeting shown on NBC.  

“I’m happy my house is now safe, as is most of my community,” said another woman, quoted in the Daily News.  

A few weeks later, in a television interview with Conan Nolan, Chairman Richard re-pledged his agency’s commitment to the San Fernando Valley. Referring to some alternate routes under consideration, Nolan asks, “These new routes don’t bifurcate Sylmar, San Fernando the way the other ones did?”  

“Right,” Mr. Richard answers. “We’ve been able to bend away from that [original route] so that we’re not impacting those communities.” 

“Not impacting those communities?” It’s a big claim and with profound implications for groups organized by local residents to oppose the original route of the bullet train. With the battle won, why bother staying vigilant? 

The answer, unfortunately, is that the battle was not won. Far from it. And Chairman Richard’s promise that the High Speed Rail Authority won’t be impacting those communities was empty.  

The method by which the Rail Authority plans to achieve its “no impact” route -- twenty miles of deep tunnels bored across numerous fault lines at depths of up to 2000 ft and through varying types of rocks, including those below the suburbs of Pacoima -- is by no means a done deal in terms of geotechnical feasibility.  

The Authority’s own report states that ongoing testing is being done to assess potential construction constraints posed by in-situ groundwater pressures, the orientations of rock mass discontinuities and fracture density, hydraulic conductivity, and so on. 

Even if all the tunneling works out, the mitigation provided is of limited extent and by no means impact-eliminating. For example, while the tunnelized high-speed rail route reduces by 7000 the number of residences subject to Noise and Vibration disturbance, it still leaves 14,328 residences subject to that hazard. And while the tunnelized route causes fewer business and residential displacements -- 406 displacements as compared to 653 -- that’s not exactly zero impact. 

What’s more, Sun Valley derives no benefit at all from the tunnelized approach touted by Chairman Richard. The train has surfaced by the time it reaches that community. 

All this is bad enough but Pacoima and Sylmar have no one to stand up for them in this fight. Since Felipe Fuentes' departure on September 11-- to go work for a Sacramento based lobbyist firm called Apex -- the residents of Council District 7 have been stripped of their legal right to representation on the council.  

Why is Council President Wesson blocking the appointment of a replacement council member for District 7? And why won't Mayor Garcetti stop him?  

Los Angeles deserves an answer.

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

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW ON THANKSGIVING--Who among us doesn’t remember learning about Thanksgiving in elementary school? In November of 1621, Governor William Bradford organized a feast to celebrate the first successful corn harvest. He extended an invitation to Wampanoag Chief Massasoit and others to join the three-day feast. The menu didn’t include cranberry sauce, Aunt Mary’s Jello mold and stuffing. Maybe not even a 25-lb. turkey. Also, the Pilgrims and their guests weren’t rushing off for Black Friday. 

The Pilgrims probably didn’t even refer to the feast as “Thanksgiving,” but, like many cultures that have celebrated harvest feasts, it’s likely they were thankful just to have survived the challenges before them. 

For most of us, the 2016 Presidential election cycle, its outcome and the anxiety of the unknown that lays ahead have magnified the stresses of daily life such as negotiating endless rush hours and SigAlerts and trying to find street parking while translating parking restrictions. As a yogi, I try to practice daily gratitude.

Focusing on what we do have can go a long way to shift our view when feeling overwhelmed by political posts on Facebook and Twitter or watching the pundits battle it out on CNN. 

As we google Thanksgiving recipes and line up at Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s, let’s remember to express gratitude for what we have, whether it’s the Hamilton soundtrack, Runyon Canyon’s reopening or that first glimpse of the Pacific we see as we drive through the awe-inspiring canyons.

I am grateful for the chance to connect with grassroots groups throughout our city. This past weekend, I celebrated with activists committed to protecting the Santa Monica Mountains. The room was filled with people of all ages who volunteer their time and efforts to ensure that current and future generations can enjoy our magnificent terrain, that wildlife will be protected, and that the land will be secured against the threat of development or vineyards that compromise the environment.

This past year, I’ve met so many Angelenos who work together to maintain neighborhood integrity throughout the city, mentoring each other through their battles. Whether we’ve moved here from somewhere else or are native Angelenos, most of us love our city for its possibilities; we love living in a community that embraces people from all over the planet.

I’ve had conversations with friends and colleagues in the weeks since the election. We’ve agreed that we must move forward in unity to protect everything from the environment to equal rights for everyone and not just a few. 

We can only conjecture what life will be like post-Inauguration but let’s remember that change doesn’t only come from the Capitol in Washington D.C. We can create change at the neighborhood, city and state levels. Focus on the issues that fire your passion, whether it’s saving your neighborhood from spot-zoning and mega-projects, helping with the housing crisis and homelessness, keeping our beaches clean, or fighting discrimination against any group that is marginalized by policy or by threats of violence, whether physical or verbal. 

Take some time to reflect not only on the need for gratitude but also on what we can do. As Julien Smith wrote in The Flinch, “You can change the world again, instead of protecting yourself from it.” 

Happy Thanksgiving!

(Beth Cone Kramer is a Los Angeles writer and a columnist for CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.)

GELFAND’S WORLD--It's hard writing about Donald Trump because, along with most of you, I find the whole thing depressing. If you are a liberal, Trump represents the dashing of hopes, but even if you are a conservative, there has to be nagging doubt. There has to be the fear that he isn't anything like he has presented himself so far. (Photo above: Bond villain General Orlov from the 007 movie Octopussy.) 

I mean, what's to keep him from reversing himself entirely from the persona he presented on the campaign trail? He certainly has changed positions often, sometimes from one day to the next. You can't even count on his loyalty to those who supported him, since the man has shown no evidence of loyalty to wives, business suppliers, or even his own lawyers. The only thing we can probably count on is that Trump will be loyal to his own economic class, even if that results in ruinous policies such as cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

The one thing we can hope for is that the U.S. Senate will act as something of a brake on Trump's less thoughtful, more dangerous proposals. What this comes down to, in practice, is that we need the Senate to continue allowing the filibuster. This will allow the current Democrats to slow down the rush to destruction. In politics, sometimes slowing things down for a while is all it takes to stop them completely.

It's sobering to realize that women's liberties and ethnic harmony are dependent on there being two or three Republican senators who, to consider them in a more honest use of the term conservative, will understand that allegiance to the American ideal requires that they uphold the senate's most misused and least defensible practice. After all, in earlier eras the filibuster was used by southern Democrats to uphold segregation and Jim Crow practices. But the filibuster is fairly old and somewhat celebrated, so it is possible that a few Republicans -- particularly the ones who distanced themselves from Trump -- will defend the existence of the filibuster as a time honored American tradition.

I think it's going to take a while for the people who voted for Trump to realize that he is likely to be a weakling. But that may be the case, because Trump doesn't seem to have the broad base of knowledge or the intellectual strength to carry a serious argument on his own. His numerous lapses and gaffes during the campaign are strong testimony to this disturbing fact. Of course it's possible to be rigid and authoritarian, something that outsiders will see as strength, but that doesn't translate to votes in the legislature. 

Here in California, we had the episode where Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called the state legislators girlie men. It might have worked well in a cheap movie, but it got him nowhere with the legislature. In retrospect, it got him a lot of grief. Imagine trying a stunt like that with John McCain in the hope of gaining his vote. School yard bullying is counterproductive at this level of national politics.

The guy who appears to be furthest from reality in the new government is the newly reselected Speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan. He wants to get rid of Medicare. We will hear the expression Phase it out, but the meaning is the same. Politically, this provides a direct invitation to people aged 65 or older to think back on how much they enjoyed dealing with insurance companies before they became eligible for that magical Medicare card. I foresee a parade of gramps and grannies, equally divided among Republicans and Democrats, marching hand in hand in opposition.

Ryan is starting Trump's first term about the way that George W. Bush started his second term. You remember how W supported adding a little private sector investment to Social Security? It's not even that terrible an idea when compared to abolishing Medicare. At least with the Social Security gambit, there would have been some chance to develop private capital over a lifetime of investing. Abolishing Medicare just adds the fear of enormous medical expenses to one's life. It's the fear and uncertainty that were felt by the pre-65 cohort during their earning years. I would like to think that Paul Ryan and any Republican who supports him in phasing out Medicare will feel the pain.

One point in regard to the media. It is a truism in screen and television writing that you need a villain to make a drama. Our language has even adopted the term "Bond villain" for somebody who is dramatically, over-the-top-evil. It's not surprising that the pundit class have reflexively glommed onto the latest Bond villain, Steve Bannon. We've even had an anti-Bannon parade here in LA. The guy is deserving of his infamy, but there are worse folks to worry about. Mike Pence is near the top of that list, because Pence really believes what he says. It will be interesting to see how late night television comedians deal with all these Bondian extremists.

There is a growing sense that Donald Trump is a bit overwhelmed with the job he has to do. Some observers claim that he wasn't aware until now that he has to pick a whole new staff for the top of the executive branch of the U.S. government. We can speculate that he simply didn't think about such things before, because he has never been in a position where one would be required to do so. 

This is a problem, but the bigger problem that the rest of us will have to face is that Trump and his closest advisers have been considering hiring staffers and cabinet members who represent adherence to the reactionary Republican ideology rather than looking for people of competence. Let's hope we're wrong on this last point. Discussions about the future of the EPA and who will be placed in charge are not encouraging.

One last point, about which I spoke in my first column about Donald Trump. Trump has presented his claims in the form of superlatives without details. Our military will be so big and so powerful that nobody will dare to challenge us, and our medical care will be great and a lot cheaper. 

Just the other day, Trump repeated that remark about fixing the American healthcare system. It was part of an interview in which he talked about repealing and replacing Obamacare, but it didn't come across as very believable. In fact, it didn't seem like Trump was taking it very seriously, because he added the additional ad hoc promise that the transition from Obamacare to its replacement would be seamless. What we haven't seen is a detailed plan, which is evidence enough that there isn't one.

(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. You can reach him at [email protected]) 

-cw

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER DEBATE-There's a war going on in the Miracle Mile of Los Angeles between residents. They are divided over what is the best and most effective way to stop unrestricted out-of-scale growth that up until now has had little or no concern for maintaining the intrinsic character and charm of the Miracle Mile neighborhood. 

While there is general agreement among all Miracle Mile residents that some form of residential development restriction must be put into place immediately, that's where any consensus among competing Miracle Mile residents seems to end. 

One faction, organized around those who have been active in the Miracle Mile Residential Association (MMRA) and its President James O'Sullivan and MMRA member Ken Hixon, seems to have made up its mind that a Historical Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) is the only solution capable of controlling development and protecting the historical character of Miracle Mile residences... even though this is clearly not the case. 

What goes unmentioned among these HPOZ supporters is that an HPOZ might be good for those Miracle Mile residents living in rent-stabilized apartments, but that it is over-kill for single family R1 residents who would see their costs for even the most modest maintenance and remodeling (consistent with the restrictions put in place by an HPOZ) double or even triple, when these R1 residences have to conform to even the most modest protracted requirements of the proposed HPOZ. 

In effect, it is as if the R1 residents, through the imposition of a costly HPOZ, are going to be subsidizing the continuance of rent stabilized multi-unit dwellings within the borders of the proposed HPOZ. 

While there are clearly less draconian measures than an HPOZ, like an R1 Variation Zone that has 16 different neighborhood model designs possible to protect the character of different types of neighborhoods without becoming an impossible and prohibitively expensive burden on Miracle Mile residents, the MMRA leadership has up until now been against even considering them. 

If you wonder why, it's because it is thought that none of the sixteen R1 Variations possible for implementation in the Miracle Mile do anything to protect residents in multi-unit smaller rent-stablized apartments that are in abundance in the Miracle Mile. 

Therefore, because of the adversarial interests between Miracle Mile residents living in single family R1 houses and those living in mostly small multi-occupant rent-stabilized buildings, it appears that O'Sullivan, Ken Hixon, and others heading the MMRA leadership, have not been forthcoming with all the necessary facts that would allow all Miracle Mile residents to make informed decisions about what would be best for everyone in the neighborhood. 

In fact, they seem to have actually manipulated the HPOZ process by alleging "facts" to support a proposed HPOZ that are verifiably untrue. 

One such distortion can be seen in this video that claims "80% of the 1351 structures in the proposed Miracle Mile HPOZ are denominated "contributors" to the proposed HPOZ zone and only 20% are not." 

And yet, when you look at the map and identify the specific residences at 5:06 minutes into this YouTube link you can see that they have included in this 80% figure "altered contributor" (yellow) residences that already have radical deviations from their uniquely historical initial architecture – supposedly a substantial prerequisite for an HPOZ. Why is that? 

In fact, the vast majority of the supposed "contributor" (green) structures that they are basing their claim for HPOZ status on are actually significantly "altered contributor" (yellow) denominated properties. 

Furthermore, when you aggregate those structures denominated "altered contributor"(yellow) and those denominated "non-contributor"(black), the claim of commonality for an HPOZ goes completely out the window. The "contributor" structures are, in fact, in the absolute minority. 

Now here's a radical notion: Even at this late date when the HPOZ train seems to have already left the station, might it not still be possible for all residents of the Miracle Mile to come together in harmony as a community and propose a compromise alternative plan to reconcile the reasonable needs of both sides? Isn't it still possible to come up with a plan that addresses all of their concerns, while incorporating all residents’ common concerns for maintaining the quality and scale of this charming community? 

Even historic preservationist Ken Bernstein of the Office of Historic Resources, Department of City Planning, seem to agree in what he has said -- if not in what he has done -- that an HPOZ is not appropriate in certain circumstances that seem to closely approximate the Miracle Mile reality: 

"An HPOZ is also not the right tool for every neighborhood. Sometimes, neighborhoods become interested in achieving HPOZ status largely to stop out-of-scale new development. An HPOZ should not be seen as an "anti-mansionization" tool: other zoning tools may better shape the scale and character of new construction. An HPOZ is best utilized when a neighborhood has a cohesive historic character and community members have reached a consensus that they wish to preserve those historic architectural features." 

Maybe you could give City Councilman David Ryu and Ken Bernstein a call to express your concerns and the fact that you are a voter. 

City Councilman David Ryu

Los Angeles City Hall
200 N. Spring Street, Room 425
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 473-7004

[email protected] 

Ken Bernstein

Office of Historic Resources, Department of City Planning

200 N. Spring Street, Room 559,

Los Angeles, CA 90012Phone (213) 978-1200 Fax (213) 978-0017

(Leonard Isenberg is a Los Angeles observer and a contributor to CityWatch. He was a second generation teacher at LAUSD and blogs at perdaily.com. Leonard can be reached at [email protected]) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

POST ELECTION HIGH-Last Wednesday the Drug Policy Alliance, a New York-based drug-reform nonprofit, held a media conference call meant to celebrate a successful election night. Voters in eight states had legalized cannabis for recreational purposes; in several more states ballot measures cleared the way for marijuana’s medical use. 

In California, where Proposition 64 passed with 56 percent of the electorate, voters had not only legalized marijuana but, in the words of the organization’s California State Director, Lynne Lyman, “eliminated nearly every marijuana violation on the books.” 

As of midnight election night, everything from transporting to selling pot had been decriminalized, reducing not just future convictions but triggering retroactive sentencing reform. 

“Over a million Californians will have the opportunity to have their record cleared reduced and expunged,” Lyman said. “We won this. And we won it in a big way.” 

An undercurrent of worry, however, ran through the celebratory mood, owing to the ascension of Donald Trump in the presidential race and the Republican lock on both houses of Congress and soon, the U.S. Supreme Court. As recently as August, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency affirmed marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I drug, prohibited for all purposes, including medical need and most research. And no one knows for sure whether the self-described “law and order candidate” who becomes president in January will tolerate state-by-state legalization. 

“I’m very worried about this,” said the DPA’s executive director, Ethan Nadelmann, noting that only a 2013 Justice Department memo stands between federal law enforcement and state marijuana markets. That document “really helped to provide a qualified light for states to proceed with implementation in the states that legalized,” Nadelmann continued. “I don’t think we’re going to have the same green light with the new administration.” 

Even in states where marijuana has been legal several years running, the marijuana economy still occupies a shadowy place in the law enforcement landscape. Thanks to Treasury Department guidance issued in 2014, banks can legally handle money for businesses that truck in cannabis, but only if they collect intelligence on those businesses and file reports on their activities. (Many banks still don’t trust the law, and a credit union for marijuana sellers has been blocked by the Federal Reserve.) The National Labor Relations Board will intervene in labor disputes and protect organizing efforts within the marijuana industry, but only because an advice memorandum in 2013 declared such involvement was appropriate. 

And while the Justice Department, in that 2013 “Cole Memo,” officially agreed to stand down in the face of robust state regulations that keep cannabis out of the hands of minors and prohibit stoned driving, like all the other advice and guidance from the federal government, such tolerance is by no means binding. If future Justice Department officials want to enforce federal law, they can start raiding cannabis shops on January 21, 2017. 

Whether or not they will however, remains a subject of tortured speculation among legal experts, advocates and academics. “Donald Trump has been totally unpredictable on this issue,” Nadelmann said during the conference call. “There was a moment years ago when he said he wanted to legalize all drugs, but he was also heard using drug-war rhetoric in the debates with Hillary Clinton.” 

Trump has also served up various word salads during his raucous campaign, statements that could be interpreted almost infinitely. “In Colorado,” Trump told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly last February, “the book isn’t written on it yet, but there is a lot of difficulty in terms of illness and what’s going on with the brain and the mind and what it’s doing. So, you know, it’s coming out probably over the next year or so. It’s going to come out.” 

It’s also possible that Trump won’t be the one making the decisions. “What’s more important than what Trump says is who the new U.S. Attorney General is, and whether that person will abide by Obama enforcement priorities,” says Hilary Bricken, a cannabis law specialist at Harris Moure in Seattle. Trump’s initial short list did not augur well: New Jersey Governor Christie has promised strict enforcement of federal laws on marijuana; Rudy Giuliani oversaw a tenfold increase in marijuana arrests during his tenure as mayor of New York. 

Another pick, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, a Republican, opined at a Senate hearing last April that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”  

Now Christie seems to be out of the running, and Giuliani prefers a position as the nation’s chief diplomat. But if they’re indicators of where Trump’s headed on justice, “we could definitely see a rollback,” Bricken says. “If the Trump administration decides to revive the drug war, we could see increased enforcement in the states that have liberalization. We could start to see more raids and indictments from the DOJ.” 

When that happens, industry momentum will likely stall out. “People will not take the risk. That could stymie all of our democratic experiments.” 

Upending those experiments, however, would no doubt prove to be a recklessly unpopular move. “You now have more than half the states in the country that have some kind of marijuana legalization,” says Sam Kamin, a criminal justice professor at the University of Denver. “That’s a pretty big cadre of states where people have decided that marijuana is not something that should be treated as a criminal matter.” 

There’s also the question of states’ rights, presumably a fundamental conservative tenet. “I’ve written that I don’t believe the federal government can enjoin the states from doing what they’re doing,” Kamin says. “It’s the basic principle of federalism. They can’t make them keep those laws on the books.” 

Nor can the federal government force state law enforcement to go after people for exclusively federal crimes. “The Printz case says that with regard to gun laws,” Kamin says. In Printz v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court determined that states were not required to perform background checks on gun buyers on behalf of the federal government. “The federal government can enforce its own laws, but can’t force the states to enforce on its behalf.” 

Where a new administration could cause trouble, however, is in the realm of regulation. “It could take the form of a lawsuit in federal court arguing that state regulatory rules are pre-empted by federal drug laws.” People worried about that happening after Colorado legalized marijuana in 2012, but it didn’t, Kamin says, “because it’s hard to see how that would serve federal goals.” If a substance is going to be freely available, it’s better to have it taxed and regulated. 

Bricken says she and other lawyers with clients in the marijuana business are paying close attention to the trend in federal law, but they aren’t slowing down in anticipation of a new administration. “If the federal government goes around arresting attorneys, then we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. But for us, it’s business as usual until we get some dramatic turnaround.” And even in that event, she says, “I wouldn’t be afraid to take up the fight.”

(Judith Lewis Mernit writes for CapitalandMain.com … where this piece was first posted.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

GUEST WORDS-The results of this election have made me think a lot about the Aeneid – an allegory of self-righteousness, subterfuge, vengeance, and loss. The story of Aeneas provides one of the more iconic metaphors of all time -- the Trojan horse. The Greeks, in their imperious haze, allow a gifted wooden horse to sit inside their fortress gates. During the night, Trojans hasten from within its lumber walls and decimate the city. The moral of the story: flashy can be fatal. Our desire to be right and relevant coupled with our false sense of impenetrability can blind us to the deadly dangers lurking within the horse, across the street or on the ballot.

The current situation in the U.S. is heartbreaking and overwhelming. An unstable and insecure man ran to be President. On Tuesday, he won. Now, wanting to win and wanting to be President are two very different things. He either ran believing all he espoused or he said whatever to win. Regardless, there is now a mandate of hate and cleansing blowing in the wind like a starched confederate flag, and this country must shoulder the responsibility for raising it. 

If the President-Elect believes what he espoused on the campaign trail, then we have a Eugenicist waiting in the wings. If he doesn’t, then he will continue to find affirmation via tweets and ”yuge” adulation-intended events while relinquishing the less flashy, but incisive tasks and responsibilities to the very smart and strategic white supremacists, climate deniers and xenophobes that have now been freed from the sidelines and are jockeying for positions in his inner circle and cabinet.

It took only hours for them to pour from his coattails. The recent position announcements of Stephen Bannon and Reince Preibus, the further elevation of Mike Pence, and rumors of Rudy Guiliani, Harold Hamm (Energy Secretary), Byron Ebell (EPA), Newt Gingrich (State Department), and Michael Flynn (National Security Advisor or Defense Secretary), Jan Brewer (Interior Secretary) and Forrest Lucas (Interior Secretary) should scare the bejesus out of us all. And yet, for some, it doesn’t. His campaign resonated, not in spite of what he said, but because of what he said. This election was a backlash on “othering.” Ultimately, this election was about reminding the world who remains first on the list.

So where do we go from here? 

Progressive Pipelines 

Seeds are planted to bear fruit. It takes time, care, focus and planning, but if tended to correctly, a bounty will produce. That bounty will serve many purposes. Our bounty, as progressives, should be school and community college boards, city councils, tax boards, county supervisors, judges, and district attorneys. Races for mayor, governor and state representatives are flashy, but diligently working at the local level can produce the kinds of progressive pipelines that we need. 

For example, District Attorneys and judicial seats may be the least prominent of state and county government, but they can deliver the most passionate and tangible results for institutional change. Together, they are a deadly combination. 48% of state supreme courts are conservative (strong or leaning). They have been responsible for decisions relating to increased voter suppression, increased executions, and decreased education funding. Conservative groups have been working overtime to keep and turn state supreme, appellate and superior courts as red as possible. Yet, if you take a poll, most folks don’t vote that far down on the ballot, don’t know who the judicial candidates are and do not seem to care. 

A recent study revealed that 95% of all elected prosecutors are white and 83% are men. Prosecutorial discretion has a direct impact on how other systems (criminal justice, and education, especially) work, and hard-liners in the DA’s offices have left many communities under siege. Inmate monitoring, police prosecution and accountability and mandatory minimum sentencing are examples of the one-two punches delivered by these two groups. So, start examining the pipelines of these candidates, and the histories of those currently in office. 

Strategic Obstruction 

It’s time to become obstructionists. It sounds aggressive, but this is survival. Conservatives have been good at mapping out lines of attack, and in investing time and money into figuring out where and how to use law and policy to plug liberal holes. The Heartland Institute, ALEC and the Cato Institute are just a few of the many conservative, neoconservative and libertarian think tanks working to ‘right-set’ the trajectory of our country. 

Progressives are good at funding on-the-ground grassroots efforts, but it takes more than just registering voters to change the tides. It takes those efforts in concert with strategic geo-mapping, constitutional law review and good old-fashioned math (counting your votes and your states) to win. It’s time to call in the product placement gurus, the neuroscientists, the policy researchers and the lawyers and shut the door until some viable strategies are born. Say “No” until you have enough votes and law to say “Yes.” At this stage of the game, lives depend on it. 

Education Still Matters 

Education is the great equalizer and it has been slowly dismantled over the past decades. Discontent with unions, changes in tax distribution, and state deficits have denigrated our public education system to something almost unrecognizable. Just look at the election results. Those without a college degree backed the President-Elect 52% - 44%. This is widest gap since 1980. Two-thirds (67%) of non-college educated whites backed the President-Elect. When we defund civics classes in the schools, we do more harm than we think. 

Civic participation happens because of educated engagement and a connection to the outcome. Public education has always been ground zero for civic engagement. I support the arts because I took music in the 5^th grade. It’s really as simple as that. It’s time to rethink Proposition 13, streamline the passage from K-12 into the community colleges and address the lack of compatibility between current student curriculum and the trending job markets. We need to get real about the inter-complexities of globalization (automation vs. union jobs), our inherent consumer tendencies (will we pay higher prices?) and how and who we educate. 

After listening to President Obama’s latest press conference, I was infuriated and depressed all over again. Listening to all of the progress that has happened, his unwavering intelligence on the issues, and his cues to Democrats to gear up for 2018 gave me some fire. It also reminded me that the system is bigger, smarter, and more complex than one person. Pernicious self-preservation is the foundation of its design. Obama suffered from being too smart and thoughtful (and black). The President-Elect will suffer from being an outsider and unfocused. Pawns they both are in a weird way – Obama was red meat for the conservative right, and the President-Elect was their Trojan horse. 

And now, the fights for equity, equality and existence are on the line more than ever before.

(Sydney Kamlager is a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles Community College District.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

TRANSIT TALK--After years of calculating and planning and outreach, LA Mayor Eric Garcetti, Westside LA Councilmember Mike Bonin and former Santa Monica Denny Zane reached high with the advocacy of Measure M. And after decades of being told it would "never happen", the Westside/Valley rail line--the Holy Grail of Transit--can become a reality.

Of course, it's remembered by so many how the Expo Line--arguably the seminal effort that made LA County's elected leaders recognize that all of LA County wanted rail alternatives to car commuting and mobility, and not just the San Gabriel Valley with their Gold Line--would "never happen".

So why is the Westside/Valley rail line (call it the Valley/Westside rail line if you live in the San Fernando Valley) the "Holy Grail" of Transit?

Three reasons:  the geographic distance from other connecting rail lines, the cost and the previous lack of political support and cohesion for this project.

1) With Measure M, we can fast-track the Wilshire Subway to reach the 405 freeway and the West Los Angeles VA a decade or more earlier, and upgrade the Orange Line to a rail line, so that the connection between the two east-west lines will occur in a more planned, comprehensive fashion.

The location of this far-west line is what also vexes the Southeast LA County Cities and the South Bay Cities with their own rail lines--they're far away from the central core of Downtown LA, but their regional traffic requires the presence of rail alternatives.

Of interest, though, is that a huge portion of those voting for the measure were from the Westside and Valley. 

One can only hope that the north-south Westside-Valley Subway will be planned and constructed in coordination with the Wilshire/Purple Line Subway.  And for those keeping score on other transit projects, ditto for a Crenshaw/LAX Light Rail Line northern extension that will be a subway between the Expo and Purple Lines. 

2) The cost is prohibitive, but that was true for the Wilshire Subway.  After virtually 100 years of talking about it, the subway under Wilshire Blvd. is being built, with political and financial support that is now universal. 

Demands to both Sacramento and Washington for matching funds will almost certainly be ramped up, and a dogfight between Republican Congressional budget hawks and President-Elect Trump will occur over how to pay for $1 trillion in national infrastructure projects. 

For now, it should be remembered that $1 billion in Measure R's plan (the forerunner of Measure M) was dedicated for a Westside/Valley transit project, and it's not hard to conclude that paying for buses and Rapid Bus stations will occur between the Orange Line Busway and the Expo Line, with stops on Sunset and the Getty Center. 

Perhaps a Busway will be built, but that may be too expensive and inflexible--would that reside in the middle of the 405 freeway, and take over the carpool lanes?  Perhaps...but the stations need to be at the destinations residing off the freeway, so that a Rapid Bus line with many new buses (paid for by Measures R and M) might be what we see in the immediate future. 

At this time, however, the concerns of $5-7 billion for a north-south Westside/Valley Subway appear to have gone the direction of the Wilshire Subway: "Yes, it's expensive.  And?" 

3) The political will of a given region overrides all obstacles, or places a given rail project at the back of the line. 

There was never a counterpart to the "Friends4Expo Transit" for a north-south Valley/Westside (Westside/Valley?) transit project.  Of course, there was also no equivalent or counterpart to an Exposition Rail Line Right of Way.  And there was certainly no cohesion between San Fernando Valley and Westside political leaders, or even political cohesion within the Valley. 

And San Fernando Valley leaders are paying the price for not showing courage and vision when they let a rail right of way become a second-rate Orange Line Busway which could have been a first-rate light rail line like what occurred with the Exposition Light Rail Line. 

What to do, what to do?  The conversion of the Orange Line Busway to a light rail, or doing the big dig with a Valley/Westside rail tunnel?  Which should come first?  Can they both be worked on together? 

Similarly, the South Bay Cities, which did not vote in as high numbers for Measure M, are paying the price for not advocating for a South Bay Green Line Extension earlier (they've got their own roadblocks, and hence that region will have to suffer until the right leaders can expedite that project and confront those among them who are blocking it. 

And ditto for the Southeast LA County Cities (Gateway Cities) who still have major freeway projects and a lower priority for any rail projects.   

The regions without the political will suffer the most, but with Latinos and Millennials overwhelmingly voting for Measure M, it's likely the chorus for more rail projects will grow ever louder. 

On a final note, there is yet ANOTHER "holy grail" that has been ignored, and will remain ignored until LAX is connected to Metro's countywide transit system: a direct LAX to Downtown rail line.  

There almost certainly WILL be more individuals noting how Metro spent money and effort to create a cute Bikeway along the Harbor Subdivision rail right of way between Inglewood and the Blue Line and Southeast Downtown LA and Union Station. 

But that, too, is an issue of geography, cost, and (especially!) political will.   

Because the dilemma of HOW, and not IF, we're going to get to these "holy grails" is one we can now enjoy with the passage of Measure M. 

Which is a dilemma that transportation experts have sought for years to confront.  And that is one dilemma that will bring cheers and smiles (and jobs!) for decades to come. 

(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 is co-chair of the CD11Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at  [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-Kids say the Darndest Things is long gone from television, but based on the rib-tickling comments from the planning and environmental consultants who Caruso Affiliated hired to support its high-rise luxury apartment project at 333 S. LaCienega, a revival in now warranted. Instead of kids, though, I suggest Art Linkletter’s and Bill Cosby’s successor can interview the various officials, architects, lawyers, planning expediters, outreach specialists, environmental specialists, and hoodwinked neighbors on the payroll to sing the praises of one unplanned mega-project after another. 

Based on their performance in promoting Caruso Affiliated’s 333 S. LaCienega project at the City Planning Commission, I think the new show might even deny Julia Louis Dreyfuss her ninth Emmy. We also may need to move quickly because if the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative passes in March 2017, developers will no longer be able to select their own environmental consultants, and all their reality-defying performances will be lost forever. 

To scope out the revival of Kids Say the Darndest Things, let us examine how these Santa’s little helpers deflected an obvious criticism: a 240 foot high-rise apartment tower constructed on a lot with a 45 feet height limit and facing one of the most congested intersections in Los Angeles does not meets the General Plan’s policy that new high density residential must match the character and scale of surrounding residences. 

Then let us move on to their equally droll defense against the public comment that some of this planet’s wealthiest tenants are not going to travel around Los Angeles on METRO busses or hoof a half-mile to the future Purple Line station at LaCienega and Wilshire for forays to LACMA, the Wiltern, Little Tokyo, or Universal Studios. 

The consultants replied that any claims of a clash in scale and character were purely conjecture, and they then asserted the opposite, that the proposed structure is visually consistent with nearby residences because they spotted some mid-rise buildings in the vicinity. Then Little Sir Echo from the Department of City Planning repeated these consultant claims to an obliging City Planning Commission (CPC). While that is obviously sufficient for a CPC whose members are insiders handpicked by the Developer-in-Chief, Eric Garcetti, it is not likely to pass muster with less enlightened outsiders. 

To begin, the Wilshire Community Plan, which governs 333 S. LaCienega Boulevard, presents two clear policies: 

Policies

1-1.1

Protect existing stable single family and low density residential neightborhoods from encroachment by higher density residential uses and other uses that are incompatible as to scale and character, or would otherwise diminish quality of life.

1-3.1

Promote architectural compatibility and landscaping for new Multiple Family residential development to protect the character and scale of existing residential neighborhoods.

New high-density residential buildings should be consistent with the character and scale of nearby low-density and single family residential areas. 

At this location the highest surrounding buildings, at Cedars-Sinai Hospital and the Beverly Center Shopping Center, are about 8 stories tall, while 240 feet translates into approximately 19-21 stories. As a result, the 333 S. LaCienega tower is at least twice the height of the tallest surrounding buildings. Furthermore, most buildings on LaCienega Boulevard, to the north, between Beverly Boulevard and West Hollywood, conform to the corridor’s 45-foot height limit, as prescribed by the General Plan and its C2-1VL zone. To the south, nearly all buildings between this site and Wilshire Boulevard also conform to the General Plan designation and to existing zoning. 

Improving the visual character of the area? 

In hopes that the pilot will become a comedy hit, the consultants also claimed that the proposed project would improve the visual character of the immediate area, even though a 240-foot tall building would tower everything else in this part of Los Angeles. To find other buildings this tall, one needs to drive west to Century City, south to some parts of Wilshire Boulevard, or north to West Hollywood’s Sunset Strip. But, the planning and zoning in these three areas permits such high rise structures, and these legal buildings are not two (2) to eight (8) times taller than everything else. While the project’s renderings are designed to shrink the building’s height, it can still be observed in the following. Despite architectural trickery and traffic-free streets at one of LA’s and Beverly Hill’s most congested corners, the high-rise still towers over the Beverly Center, which is one block to the north and Cedars Sinai, which is to its immediate northwest. 

Auto-centric high-rise structures, like this, are transit adjacent, not transit oriented. 

In response to public comments that it is highly farfetched to re-package a luxury high-rise tower as a transit-oriented development whose super-wealthy tenants will ride METRO busses, the consultant’s rejoinder was so ingenious that Larry David must be cribbing the lines. Any claims about high rents and low transit use are purely speculative. But, this complaint about the proposed project was not speculative. It is based on data that the high-rollers shelling out $12,000 to $40,000 per month for rent will NOT take METRO busses or the future subway. 

The information comes straight from the project’s developer, Rick Caruso, as corroborated by the Los Angeles Times. At several meetings with the Beverly Wilshire Homes Association, Mr. Caruso stated that his project will be a unique luxury apartment building, and about half of its tenants would be occasional visitors from other countries. It would offer the up-scale amenities of a five star hotel, including a concierge service that shops for tenants and provides on-call chauffeur-driven luxury cars for all their mobility needs. 

Apparently, the meeting did not last long enough for the developer to mention that there were nearby METRO bus stops and his future tenants would quickly grow tired of their chauffeur-driven luxury cars. At that point, they would switch to METRO busses, and beginning in 2023, stroll a half-mile to LaCienega and Wilshire to venture forth on the Purple Line Subway. 

At these meetings Mr. Caruso also emphasized that his tenants expected lavish amenities, including semi-private elevators that allowed them to avoid other tenants. This was, in fact, his primary reason for not building a shorter building with more luxury units on each expanded floor. 

While it not possible to know the exact rent structure of the proposed project, according to the real estate site, Curbed LA, it is intended to match the luxury Caruso building one block to the south, at 8500 Burton Way, where the penthouse rents for $40,000 per month. 

Furthermore, according to the March 9, 2015, Los Angeles Times, the typical rent there is $12,000 per month, which is at least four times the average rent in Los Angeles, and comparable to the highest rents in New York City. This press report also quotes the developer directly: 

"It's very eclectic," he said of the tenant mix, "sort of the rich and famous of all categories….About half of them have a primary home outside Los Angeles, in many cases overseas, he said, "It's a second home to many." 

A key factor in the building's appeal is hotel-like service, Caruso said. There is a driver and car to help tenants run errands or get to the airport. A concierge will secure concert tickets or see to it that tenants' grocery lists are fulfilled and the food is stocked in their pantries. 

"We shop everywhere," Caruso said. "If you want a salad from the Polo Lounge, we'll bring you a salad from the Polo Lounge. People want to be pampered." 

While the environmental and planning consultants might contend that these rich and famous tenants will take METRO busses and the future Purple Line subway, their sole evidence is proximity to several bus stops. But, a transit adjacent apartment building is hardly the same as a transit-oriented one. In the latter, the tenant mix is transit-oriented, and programs to generate transit ridership are front and center, not an after-thought slipped into an Environmental Impact Report. 

Had the consultant team looked further, though, they could have easily obtained a demographic profile of METRO passengers derived from on-board surveys. Eighty percent of the bus passengers are Latino, Black, and American Indian. Their average income is $16,377 per year, which means they are not likely to rent luxury apartments at 333 S. LaCienega. In fact, with such low incomes, it is doubtful they could even afford the 13 low income and affordable apartments that Caruso Affiliated pledges to build to qualify for on and off-menu Density Bonus incentives.  

While I realize that some readers may struggle to find the humor in this column, can’t we at least agree that the creativity of the consultants and their abettors at City Hall ought to be recognized? If not through a new comedy series, then perhaps we should consider something else, perhaps the next Doublespeak Award from the National Council of Teachers of English.

(Dick Platkin reports on local planning issues in Los Angeles for CityWatch. He is also serves on the Board of the Beverly Wilshire Homes Association, which opposes the requested zone change, height district change and General Plan Amendment for the proposed luxury apartment tower at 333. S. LaCienega. Please send any comments or corrections to [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.