LOS ANGELES

SPECIAL REPORT--Public support for the legalization of recreational marijuana in the U.S. is at a historic high—so to speak—of 60 percent, according to a new Gallup poll just released. 

The results come just as a growing number of states vote to legalize recreational marijuana, with another five states casting ballots on the issue this November. Local surveys indicate the efforts are likely to pass in Arizona, California, Maine, and Massachusetts. Nevada, the final state considering legalization, seems more conflicted. (Voters will also decide on medical marijuana questions in Arkansas, Florida, Montana, and North Dakota.)

A Pew Research Center poll released last week found similar results. 

Gallup first asked the question in 1969 and found that public support for legalization stood at 12 percent. It increased slightly to 28 percent during the mid-'70s, but fell back down during the "Just Say No" anti-drug era of the '80s and wavered around 25 percent in the '90s. But it has climbed steadily since 2000, paving the way for an increasing number of states to legalize recreational marijuana, and in 2013 reached a majority for the first time.

The survey also found that young adults overwhelmingly back legalization, with 77 percent of people aged 18-34 expressing their support. But older generations increasingly favor it too, with support at 45 percent among people aged 55 and older.

Politically, the group that favors legalization the most is Independents, who poll at 70 percent support, up from 47 percent in 2003 and 2005. The next is Democrats, at 67 percent, up from 38 percent during that same time period. Republican support has more than doubled, polling now at 42 percent versus 20 percent in 2003 and 2005.

The pollsters said the numbers were particularly important with regards to California's legalization effort. The bottom line, Gallup says, is that California is a political trendsetter in the U.S.—so if it passes there, many other states will likely follow.

"As more states legalize marijuana, the question of whether the drug should be legal may become when it will be legal," Gallup's managing editor Art Swift explained in a write-up of the poll results.

In this election alone, "[t]he percentage of Americans living in states where pot use is legal could rise from the current 5 percent to as much as 25 percent if all of these ballot measures pass," he wrote.

(Nadia Prupis writes for Common Dreams … where this report was first posted.)

-cw

EDUCATION POLITICS-I was at the Los Angeles school board meeting for 10 hours yesterday. I missed the morning session, figuring that since the charter approvals were on the consent calendar, there wasn’t much point. I was right; in one vote, the district lost nearly 6000 students to charter approvals. I guess UTLA made the same calculation because they did not show up either. Four charter revisions or renewals were approved and one new charter got the green light. Eight more charters--including four KIPP--were publicly noticed for hearing next month. 

Parent activist Carl Petersen joined me for the last half. All three Magnolia Charters were denied renewal. So they will likely appeal their case to the County, which rarely rejects charters. I don't know what was in the report that was not made public (why?) but even charter champions Monica "Cradle of Reform" Garcia and Ref "Never met a charter I didn't like" Rodriguez voted them down. The report that was public contained a letter from State Superintendent Tom Torlakson telling Magnolia that it was in violation for failing to respond to repeated requests for information.  Still, Caprice Young told a television news reporter that Magnolia had provided everything the state requested, the state gave Magnolia a "clean bill of health" and that she thinks LAUSD just does not want good charter schools. 

Citizens of the World charter was approved to expand from elementary to middle school. It is located within three miles of five other LAUSD middle schools. For an introduction to their citizenship, take a look at this 1 minute video clip in which they explain that they're the vibrant vine strangling the dying tree of Stoner Elementary School. 

Carl and I were two of only three parents at the board meeting advocating for district schools among nearly 200 people in attendance. Dozens more charter supporters had been bussed and waited outside. That’s what happens when a school is threatened with shut down. I guess when LAUSD starts closing our schools, parents might start showing up to board meetings, too. We shall see. We shall see very soon.

UTLA finally showed up in the form of one person, its president. He did not speak even though "labor partners" are allowed to speak on any agenda item. This plays into the charter lobby's favorite device: the fictional teachers-against-parents narrative, always claiming that it’s just doing what parents want.

For the evening session, we parents were only allowed one public comment for the entire meeting even though there were nine agenda items. Carl focused on details of El Camino and the harassment he has been subjected to since blogging about them. There was a collective, audible cringe from El Camino supporters when he approached the podium.

I implored the board to stand up for neighborhood schools and reminded them that they were our only hope because the CCSA has the governor on speed dial. That comment might be why the CCSA started following me on Twitter last night.

One charter dad told the board that it should not oversee charters due to its "implicit bias" on account of the district competing with charters for tax payer dollars. But, he said, don't worry. We're going to get the law changed. In the meantime, here's a great NPR story for that dad to find out what implicit bias really is. 

Here is Howard Blume’s report. I’m sure KPCC will have one later today. LA School Report will have several. That’s what they do to influence opinion. They tell the charter story over and over until people believe it.

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

ANIMAL WATCH--This week is Urban Wildlife Week, culminating with ‘P22 Day’ on Saturday October 22^nd, a day-long celebration of Los Angeles’ most famous feline resident.

P22 is a 7-½ year old mountain lion living in Griffith Park, right in the heart of the city. His story is so captivating and inspirational I felt he deserved his own documentary feature film, “The Cat that Changed America”, which has just been submitted to the Sundance Film Festival, as well as other major film festivals in the US. When the trailer was released on social media last weekend, it rapidly reached an audience of 30,000 people, adding to P22’s already established fan base. 

P22 was born in the Santa Monica Mountains west of Downtown LA, and he had to cross two of the busiest freeways in the country, the 405 and the 101 to arrive in his new home in Griffith Park. In doing so, he travelled through one of the most densely populated areas, through Bel Air and Beverly Hills, and came within a couple of miles of the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Incredibly no one saw him. Los Angeles is one of the few urban cities to have large carnivores living within its city limits.

“He’s called P22 because he is the 22^nd puma we’ve captured in our study,” says wildlife biologist Jeff Sikich from the National Park Service. Jeff has been radio-tracking P22 ever since his first discovery in 2012, and the National Park Service biologists are conducting extensive studies into the Mountain lions of the Santa Monica mountains, looking at their genetic diversity and issues of connectivity.

For four years now, Jeff has been following P22 in Griffith Park, monitoring his movements and finding out about his habits. P22 like all mountain lions is secretive and nocturnal, so filming him for the documentary was the biggest challenge. Mountain lions are called ‘Ghosts Cats’ for good reason. They are shy of people, incredibly elusive, and difficult to track. Luckily photographs and footage of P22 was filmed on camera traps, provided by the Griffith Park connectivity study as well as the National Park Service. Cameras were placed along trails. Hundreds of pictures were taken of the wildlife coming in and out of Griffith Park, including bobcats, skunks, deer and coyote.

As a natural history film maker myself, I first became aware of P22 when he was photographed for National Geographic magazine, walking in front of the Hollywood sign. But it was only after speaking to wildlife biologist Miguel Ordeñana, who captured the first photograph of P22 on one of his camera traps - “It was the biggest discovery that no one expected” - did I uncover the extent of his incredible journey.

Yet despite P22’s celebrity living in the shadow of the Hollywood sign, and becoming a symbol for urban wildlife, he is now trapped in the park. He’s hemmed in by freeways and the urban sprawl, and will probably die a lonely bachelor. It’s very unlikely that another mountain lion will make that journey and survive.

P22’s plight has aroused the sympathy of not only conservationists but also anyone who hears of his story. “Angelenos love him,” says Beth Pratt, the California Director for the National Wildlife Federation. “Who can’t relate to being dateless on a Friday night and stuck in traffic?”

The territory range of a mountain lion is 200 square miles, and males will fight to the death over territory. As a young male, P22 had no choice but to leave his birthplace in the Santa Monica Mountains and strike out to find a territory of his own. “He’s the Neil Armstrong of his kind,” says Beth. “He made a journey into the unknown.” It was a miraculous but hazardous journey, as mountain lions die on our freeways as they try to disperse.

Beth is spearheading the “Save LA Cougars” campaign to raise over $55 million to build a wildlife crossing over the 101 freeway at Liberty Canyon, near the place where P22 was born. “I’ve been working in environmental conservation for 25 years now and the Liberty Canyon crossing is the most inspirational thing I’ve worked on – it’s also maybe the most challenging,” says Beth. In order to stay on target, the campaign’s near term goal is to raise $10 million by 2017, and the balance by 2019 for the crossing to be completed by 2021. But Beth is confident that they will raise the money needed.

Part of the fundraising is happening this week with a 40-mile hike, which is starting at the proposed site of the Liberty Canyon wildlife crossing in Agoura Hills, and will take three days. “We’re going to hike the backbone trail in the Santa Monica Mountains,” says Beth. “Then we start getting into towns, cities and roads. In the morning of the fourth day, we’re going to end up in Griffith Park, pretty much where P22 entered. This will show what P22 had to go through to get here.”

Beth will be leading the 40-mile hike from the site of the wildlife crossing, and will be wearing a mountain lion radio collar so people can track her movements online. She’ll also be carrying a cardboard cutout of P22, inspired by one of the National Geographic photographs.

"It's going to be an inspirational journey for many people," says Miguel. "They are going to be inspired by the places they visit and the people that they see. There are a lot of people along the way who care about wildlife, especially urban wildlife like P22.”

The hike is going to end on October 22^nd, because it’s 22, and P22 day. As Beth says, “We’re going to celebrate with a day-long festival of music, arts and celebrity and fun.” Gerry Hans, President of Friends of Griffith Park agrees, “We’re really happy that the culmination of P22 day and P22 walk is going to happen right here in Griffith Park.”

 Working with LA based cinematographer Alex Rapaport, the aim of my film is to raise awareness for the plight of mountain lions living in Los Angeles, including the issues of fragmentation and connectivity.

But that’s not the only dangers that urban wildlife is facing. Over 80% of mountain lions are said to have ingested rat poison in some form, whether it is by catching and eating raccoons and coyotes that have consumed rats which have eaten the poison.

The effects of anticoagulant rodenticides are devastating upon wildlife; the animals bleed internally, they suffer side effects like mange, and die a slow and agonizing death.  Poison Free Malibu who I interviewed for the documentary, are grass roots activists who have done incredible things to ban rodenticides in shopping centers and housing associations.

The hope of this film is to bring attention to the mountain lions suffering from both rodenticides and lack of connectivity. A new study suggests that mountain lions could die out in the next 50 years because of inbreeding, lack of genetic diversity and connectivity. Many people, including Los Angelenos are unaware of the problems facing their big cat neighbors.

“The Cat that Changed America” will be released next year and you can see the trailer on Youtube or on the film’s website. P22’s celebrity has influenced people to change our thinking and see cities as acceptable places for wildlife to thrive. I know that Angelenos and the rest of the world will fall in love with the story of a cat who can't find a mate.

(TONY LEE is an award winning producer and director who has been making films for over 25 years. He has developed successful formats for television and has worked with high profile talent in the UK and US. Tony has worked in California for 2 years for National Geographic Television and in New York City for Animal Planet. He produced and directed The Cat That Changed America.)

-cw

CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION-The Sunset Coalition is hoping a San Francisco appeals court ruling will soon validate a health standard for protecting children against cancer that will have the collateral effect of forcing reductions in the size of the Archer School for Girls expansion project in Brentwood. 

To accomplish this ambitious effort to out-flank the Los Angeles City Council’s controversial approval of Archer’s $100 million expansion project, the Coalition recently filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in a San Francisco lawsuit. That lawsuit opposes a plan to build an 18,000-seat sports arena for the Golden State Warriors basketball team across the street from a children’s hospital. 

“We are supporting the San Francisco case because we believe it can result in a court order establishing a standard for protecting the health of children that will be of tremendous value in our lawsuit against Archer,” said Coalition attorney Doug Carstens, author of the amicus brief. Shortly after the Los Angeles City Council – led by Brentwood councilman Mike Bonin - and Mayor Eric Garcetti approved the Archer project in Aug. 2015, the Coalition and others sued, claiming the project violated city zoning rules and state environmental law. 

“It is outrageous and unacceptable that Archer and the city leaders have failed to use the best, most up to date science, to ensure that the over-large Archer expansion project does not illegally expose local residents, but especially Archer’s own schoolchildren, to dramatically increased risks for cancer,” said Carstens. 

The cancer risks will be particularly acute during construction of the Archer project, the Coalition maintains. 

“The construction activity will create toxic air quality conditions that students and residents will have to breathe,” said Wendy-Sue Rosen, co-chair of the Sunset Coalition, a non-profit advocacy group set up originally to limit the size of the Archer project. 

“About 500 young girls will be on the campus for two full school years during the proposed construction,” said Zofia Wright of the Sunset Coalition. “In addition, at least 250 residents who live in the immediate area will also be affected – especially any who are elderly or infirm. The health of these people should not be put at risk.” 

The risks are related to the NO2 (nitrogen dioxide is the major pollutant resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels) and toxic particulate contaminants that will be emitted by construction vehicles, said Carstens. 

The massive Archer expansion project, scheduled to begin in May 2017 and last for at least 36 months, will involve over 260,000 construction vehicle traveling to and from the Archer worksite, including 9,000 cement truck trips and 10,000 extra-large haul tractors with double trailers. Other heavy equipment will also be operating on the site during construction. 

In the San Francisco and the Archer lawsuits, the opponents have alleged that the offending projects and local authorities failed to properly disclose to the public the increased health risks, especially to children, posed by the large building projects. Moreover, they allege, the projects fail to include ways to mitigate the health risks. 

“What we’re talking about are violations of basic environmental rules requiring disclosure and mitigation of harmful effects,” said Carstens. 

In the San Francisco and Archer lawsuits, it is alleged that, based on new scientific findings, the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has developed guidelines for protecting the health of children, and that those guidelines have been ignored by Archer and the city of Los Angeles (and by the Warriors arena developer and San Francisco authorities). 

Those new scientific findings concern the breathing rates of children. Children, in effect, inhale and exhale air at greater rates than do adults. Thus, when there are contaminants in the air, children take in more of those contaminants than adults (as a proportion of their body size). In addition, scientific evidence has demonstrated that children are more susceptible to toxins than adults. As a result, OEHHA has lowered the threshold of acceptable exposure to airborne toxins for children based on the new breathing rate data. 

“The science is very clear and the OEHHA’s guidance is very clear but the developers and elected officials overseeing their projects have ignored them,” said Carstens. 

Expert analysis using the new OEHHA standards shows that cancer risks for schoolchildren during the most intense periods of construction will be far greater than the risks permitted by Los Angeles’ own health policies, said Carstens. 

The San Francisco case has been set for oral arguments on Nov. 16 in the 1st District Court of Appeals. Opponents have claimed the city’s review of the Warriors arena project failed to quantify and mitigate the project’s greenhouse gas emissions and to adequately inform the public about cancer-causing toxic air contaminants. 

The city approved the vehicle-intensive Warriors project for construction just across the street from the University of California at San Francisco Children’s Hospital and from residential housing for UCSF students and their families. An analysis using updated breathing rates for children showed the air pollutants from the arena project would increase the cancer risk for children residing nearby by 71 percent.

(John Schwada is a former investigative reporter for Fox 11 in Los Angeles, the LA Times and the late Herald Examiner. He is an occasional contributor to CityWatch. His consulting firm is MediaFix Associates.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

DEEGAN ON LA-Just think of Bambi, and you have a pretty searing image of what can happen to wildlife when our tinder-dry hillsides ignite with flames, as they often do, especially in these drought-parched days. 

Humans have equally stressful times living in the same tinderbox, but help is available to them by way of robo-calls and mass media warnings. A “yes” vote on propositions FF and GG on the November 8 ballot will enact a parcel tax (that only certain hillside property owners will be asked to pay,) bringing more help to protect the hillside built and wildlife environments – areas where there is a special need for increased fire prevention and more park rangers. 

“The hillsides and canyons of the Mulholland Corridor east and west of the 405 are facing significant challenges,” said Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) Ranger Walt Young, who has been patrolling Mulholland Drive for more than 22 years. “After five years of drought, soil moisture is at a record low. Traffic has doubled in just four years, and the risk of dangerous activity is compounded by the surge in use of the scenic overlooks and other parklands. Funding from measures FF and GG will allow the MRCA to increase ranger patrol to seven days a week along the Mulholland Corridor, increase fire prevention and high alert fire patrols, and provide opportunity to acquire open space to protect wildlife and prevent development.” 

Measures FF and GG ask selected hillside residents that are covered by each ballot proposition to vote on a parcel tax “...to maintain and conserve local open space, wildlife corridors, and parklands; acquire and protect additional lands from development; improve fire prevention including high fire alert patrols and brush clearing; protect water quality in local creeks; and increase park ranger safety patrols.” 

Measure FF, the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority-Area 2, is for the hillside communities of Woodland Hills, Encino, and Tarzana, and would implement a $15 special tax for ten years only, providing $241,000 annually with all funds spent locally in the area. 

Measure GG the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority-Area 1, is for the Santa Monica Mountains and Hollywood Hills east of 405 freeway, and would implement a $35 special tax for ten years only, providing $995,000 annually, with all funds spent locally. 

Speaking about the value of FF and GG, Alison Simard, Chairperson of Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife (CLAW) told CityWatch, “The wildlife don’t get the robo-calls that it’s red flag day, or the urgent messages that it’s time to get out. It’s hard for them to find their way out so they stay put. All the more reason protecting wildlife habitats and connectivity are so important to maintain.” She added that “there’s also an acquisition piece to these ballot measures, so there’s a chance that money can be used to purchase open space to protect wildlife habitat.”

What is surprising about this ballot measure is that it highlights a little-known agency (the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority) and funding mechanism (the Mello-Roos state law) that is the only game in town for this sort of contingency. That the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) exists, at all, and that it can take steps to put funding measures on the November 8 ballot is actually a pretty neat thing: they identified a need, such as fire prevention, additional park rangers and protection and possible expansion of wildlife corridors, and then organized a ballot measure to fund it; even more precisely, they targeted it to have the measure funded only by a select group of parcel owners in designated districts. Its closest analog may be a business improvement district. 

Councilmember Paul Koretz (CD5), whose district has a significant portion of the hillside that is covered by Props FF and GG, believes that these measures will help. "I strongly support measures GG and FF, which implement a modest special tax in the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Areas, one East of the 405 and one West. They fund maintaining and conserving local open space and wildlife corridors, acquiring and protecting land from development, improving fire protection, protecting local water quality, and increasing local park ranger safety patrols,” says Koretz. 

“I was involved in passing a similar measure around 15 years ago, which primarily saved the Briar Summit area from becoming a large development of single family homes, and instead protected open space and critical wildlife corridors. It was a great success and a blessing for hillside residents. I believe these measures will be as well.” 

Just what is the MRCA/Mello-Roos combination? Is it a model that can be replicated in other instances and circumstances? The funding capability comes from Mello-Roos, a state law that was enacted after Prop 13 seriously curtailed property tax income. Mello-Roos provides for a “parcel tax” (not a tax levied against assessed value of the property, but on the “parcel”) – a financing vehicle that creates “Community Facilities Districts” to raise money through special taxes for improvements in the district. Two-thirds of the voters in the district must approve measures for passage. 

The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) is a local government public entity that was established in 1985 as a partnership between the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a state agency established by the Legislature, and the Conejo Recreation and Park District, along with the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District, both of which are local park agencies established by the vote of the people in those communities. 

The role of the MRCA is the “preservation and management of local open space and parkland, watershed lands, trails, and wildlife habitat.” It also provides ranger services for almost 73,000 acres of public lands and parks that it owns and that are owned by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. 

“There’s not lots of city effort towards conservation, so we’re lucky to have these (FF and GG) boundaries established by state legislators” offered Tony Tucci, Co-Director of CLAW and a board member of the Bel Air Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council and a fan of the “community facilities districts” that Mello-Roos creates. He says the funds generated by Props FF and GG are “a local tax that stays local, and creates a great local investment.” Some people are repelled by taxes, but Tucci reports that “...there’s been no published opposition against the measures. What’s refreshing to hear from residents, when we talk about these measures, is that there’s never a negative response. People think it’s low cost for fire prevention.” 

For the “Bambis” in our hillsides, ballot measures FF and GG can also be seen as a wellness tactic and a preventative measure to cut down on reckless firebugs (a tossed cigarette can instantly create an inferno.) These measures will provide more ranger patrols, increased fire protection, and protection and maybe expansion of their wildlife corridors. Props FF and GG are equal-opportunity winners -- benefitting all hillside residents, whether human or wildlife.

(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.

ALPERN AT LARGE-In the past few CityWatch articles, I focused mainly on the money measures/propositions, and to summarize my $.02: 

1) Vote YES on County Measure M (transportation funding), and NO on every other city, county, and state funding measure/proposition on school construction, parks, homeless initiatives, LAX police pensions, health initiatives, etc. unless you:   

a) Believe our current spending for these otherwise-excellent priorities is being performed efficiently, effectively, and transparently. 

b) Believe that businesses, homeowners, and all taxpayers are doing just swimmingly well, and can afford more taxes because our taxes are relatively low. 

2) That means to Vote NO on Measure A, LA Community College District Measure CC, LA City Measure HHH and LA City Measure SSS, as well as State Propositions 51, 52, 55, and 56) 

3) Vote YES on governmental reform and transparency (LA City Measure RRR, State Propositions 53 and 54) but NO on governmental overreach in hiring, building and contracting in the City of LA (Measure JJJ) 

And now it's on to "law and order" initiatives.  Do we: 

1) Want another surge of crime from "early release" parolees who were let out early because they "only" had nonviolent crimes on their records (but which were done to be compromising/kind in the hopes they would have enough time in prison to reform their lives)? 

2) Do we trust those who've fought and made a joke of every death penalty case to defend us from some of the most violent felons imaginable?  Do we reward the naive individuals who defend those who are blatantly guilty (not just hearsay, but undeniably guilty) of murder and prolong their capital punishment appeals for years and decades on end? 

3) Do we believe that the marijuana out today is the same relatively weak-potency material present in the 1950's, or recognize that some purified marijuana is about as dangerous as LSD? 

4) Do we want marijuana and other controlled substances promoted all over the place, so that our children, even as young adults believe it's more acceptable?  Do you want YOUR kids, even as young adults, to start using marijuana? 

I'm a physician by trade, and during my training I actually VOLUNTEERED to take every prison patient/rotation I could because I wanted to learn more about the realities of prison life and those who reside within the prison system. 

There is room for kindness, compassion, forgiveness, and reform throughout the law enforcement and prison systems.  More and more police officers and prison guards are learning that the best forms of law enforcement include the encouragement of personal and professional reform in prisoners' lives...even felons.  Recidivism is awful, and a reformed life is beautiful. 

Furthermore, medical marijuana--while requiring reform such as proper dosing and evidence-based medical literature that is non-anecdotal--has a proper role in our society, but a "go for it!" message to our youth in the same manner we see with alcohol is a BIG problem that requires attention in a sober (pun intended) fashion. 

Is marijuana as big a problem as heroin, crack, bath salts, etc.?  Of course not--many people use it recreationally, or even just to relax, and they are high-functioning.  But saying it's wonderful and OK for a larger percentage of society?   

No, no, and no again to all who think that marijuana plays no deleterious role in the lives of those who become addicted (and it is addictive, particularly with the more potent forms we see today). 

1) NO on PROP 57 

We should avoid the early release of criminals who will have rap sheets that include rape by intoxication or of an unconscious person, human trafficking, drive-by shooting, hostage taking, arson, failing to register as a sex offender, and a host of other major offenses (LINK: http://www.stop57.com/ballot-argument/)  

2) Vote NO on PROP 62, and YES on PROP 66 

The death penalty consideration already can be swayed by the families of the victims who had everything (their lives) taken from them.  Prison for life without parole is already a consideration for those under special circumstances. 

But to reward the crazies and the naive do-gooders who've warped the intent of the appeal system, and who knowingly defend those truly guilty of unforgiveable crimes (particularly when the family of the victims believes that their loved ones' lives merit the death penalty to their loved ones' murderers) is itself a crime. 

All efforts should be made to make sure that absolutely NO death penalty is administered on an innocent defendant.  DNA testing and investigations should be funded without limitation.  Yet when the murderer is truly, honestly guilty, then the death penalty: 

a) Establishes that the life of the victim, who is NOT present to represent what they went through when they had their lives ripped away from them, means something. 

b) Provides closure to society that wants justice served, and the message promoted that murder is horrible, unforgiveable, and will have BIG consequences.  

c) Still exists to let all of society know that murder is never acceptable, and to persist as a deterrent to some, but not all of our criminal population (which does exist, whether we want to acknowledge that or not). 

3) Vote NO on PROP 64 

When law enforcement officers state that recreational marijuana is "no big deal" then maybe it's not, but the marijuana we see today is too potent, too addicting, and too problematic to just open the doors at this point.  DUI convictions are already a problem, and they will go up big time if this ill-advised proposition passes. 

By and large, most recreational marijuana users keep it on "the down low" and the police tend to ignore those not using while driving--this was established in laws and policies set up during the Schwarzenegger era. 

And medical marijuana, while needing much, MUCH better science to support dosing, indications, side effects, best-practices, etc. that the rest of medicine adheres to, has its benefits and roles within both experimental and clinical medical practice.  However, equating marijuana and alcohol at this time as "the same" is too premature and inaccurate to pass this proposition. 

So … listen to the police, highway patrol, and other law-enforcement agencies!  They can't keep us safe if we undermine their efforts! 

And please take the time to vote November 8, ya hear?

(Ken Alpern is 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.)

-cw

RANTZ & RAVEZ--Recent news reports and conservations with Los Angeles patrol officers illustrate just how far out of touch the leaders of Mayor Eric Garcetti’s Los Angeles Anti-Police Commissioners are with LAPD Offices around the city. From the San Fernando Valley to San Pedro and from West Los Angeles to the Eastern portion of Los Angeles the abandoned feeling and desperation of officers is alarming. 

The Anti-Police Commissioners led by President Matthew M. Johnson and followed by rabble rousing Cynthia McClain-Hill and Sandra Figueroa-Villa are to blame for this disconnect. This may be part of the reason recruitment efforts are down at the LAPD. With a budget for 10,000 officers, the LAPD currently has 8,837 officers on the books. That is 163 officers short of the authorized strength. The number of officers does make a difference in crime reduction and police response times. 

The Anti-Police Commissioners are criticizing and faulting dedicated LAPD Officers for engaging in police actions against a growing criminal element that is forcing LA’s crime rates to explode. Showing more concern about restricting the enforcement action of LAPD Officers than addressing the criminal behavior of those that prey on innocent victims is the ill conceived and tragic direction of the majority of the current Anti-Police Commission. 

Commissioner Johnson set his vision and two goals as Commission President. Number one was the reduction of crime. He has totally failed in that category. Crime is up and continues to rise with reduced numbers of arrests. The October 8, 2016, LAPD citywide violent crime and arrest profile clearly illustrates the frightening numbers. Total violent crimes are up a shocking 36.4% over 2014. 

These include Murder, Rape, Robbery and Aggravated Assaults. Property crimes are also on the increase. They include Burglary, GTA, and Burglary from vehicle and personal/other theft. These are up 21.3% when you compare 2016 to 2014. These alarming crime statistics clearly reflect the lack of effectiveness of Commissioner Johnson and his leadership in reducing crime in Los Angeles. 

The second category is Johnson’s goal of minimizing the use-of-force incidents. That goal is also missing the mark. With his lack of support and encouragement for the officers that carry out the difficult task of keeping Los Angeles safe, use-of-force incidents continue against those individuals that commit crimes and violently resist arrest. 

The number of officer-involved shootings rose 60% in 2015 compared to 2014. 87% of those shot by an officer in 2015 had either a gun or some other type of weapon at the time of the shooting. Many of those shot by officers showed signs of mental illness. 

When an officer encounters an individual with a gun or knife or any other type of weapon, the officer attempts to defuse the situation. When all else fails, there are few options left for that officer.          

When the Anti-Police Commission attempts to meet on their regular scheduled Tuesday, the loud mouths and Anti-police activists in the audience are permitted to disrupt the meeting by screaming and acting like spoiled children to gain attention for their mission of protesting the enforcement of law in Los Angeles. 

Their mission is very simple and has gained the support of the weak and spineless members of the Anti-Police Commission led by Commissioners Johnson and McClain-Hill. During a recent Commission meeting, a women made direct death threats against LAPD Officers. The Commission did nothing to address this Terrorist Threat against LAPD Personnel. The Cowardly acts and a lack of support for LAPD personnel by the Anti-Police Commission are at the root of this matter.    

When uniform officers encountered a crazed women with a knife who failed to follow their commands and directions and charged at them forcing them to either run away and hide or face the attack, the Commission discounted the recommendation of Chief Beck who found that the shooting was in policy and found that the officers use of deadly force was appropriate. 

The message from the Commission is to run and hide and avoid any encounter that may result in the use of force. I asked officers if it is worth their career and livelihood for themselves and their family to take that risk. Even with the lack of support from the majority of the Anti-Police Commission, some offices are continuing to serve the public and face the risk of negative consequences of trying to “Protect and Serve” the people of Los Angeles.       

In recent conversations with LAPD Patrol Officers with 7 months to over 20 years of service, the concern is the same. While the Anti-Police Commission is undermining the actions of the officers and attempting to weaken the enforcement efforts of the LAPD, the officers are receiving support from the people of Los Angeles who appreciate what they are doing to try and make Los Angeles a safe place for everyone. 

It is interesting to note that the Commission is not addressing the criminal element in the city that is forcing the crime numbers to increase. They are only pushing to reduce the effectiveness of the police and use of force incidents. In reality and on the streets of Los Angeles, there are increasing numbers of people being released from prison and turning to the law abiding residents of Los Angeles to fill their pockets with stolen items or assault them causing bodily harm.  

The recent deaths of three-law enforcement officers shot and killed in Southern California clearly illustrates the point. First there was Los Angeles County Sheriff Sergeant Steve Owen a 29-year veteran of the Sheriff’s Department. 

The second and third police officers were shot and killed in Palm Springs. Officer Gil Vega a 35 year member of the Department preparing for retirement in the next two months and Lesley Zerebny who had 1 ½ years of service who just returned to duty after the birth of her child. How tragic for the families of the law enforcement personnel who have died in the line of duty. Black bands will be displayed on the badges of law enforcement personnel and their memory will remain with their family, friends and colleagues. 

To date, there is a 55% increase in gun deaths to Law Enforcement personnel across the country. With these increasing numbers, the Anti-Police Commission should be more concerned about the safety of officers then the loud mouths Anti-police activists that are trying to cripple our police officers. 

It would be a refreshing change for the members of the Anti-Police Commission to address those who carry guns and commit crime to comply with the orders of officers who are professional and dedicated to protecting ALL the people of Los Angeles. A continuing life of crime is where many who are released from prison end up. 

It does not really matter if the person is a hardened murderer, robber, burglar, rapist, and car thief or of crazed mind from drugs, they are all responsible in one way or another for their actions. Holding the police back from protecting the public they are sworn to protect and serve is a constant crime the Anti-Police Commission is committing.  

With the continuing coddling of the Anti police activists by the Anti-Police Commission that are attempting to tear down the LAPD and with encouragement by the Anti-Police Commission for those that are undermining the effectiveness of the LAPD, any injury sustained by an officer from a suspect is at the hands of the Out of Touch, and Cowardly members of the Los Angeles Anti-Police Commission.

(Dennis P. Zine is a 33-year member of the Los Angeles Police Department and former Vice-Chairman of the Elected Los Angeles City Charter Reform Commission, a 12-year member of the Los Angeles City Council and a current LAPD Reserve Officer who serves as a member of the Fugitive Warrant Detail assigned out of Gang and Narcotics Division. Disclosure: Zine was a candidate for City Controller last city election. He writes RantZ & RaveZ for CityWatch. You can contact him at [email protected]. Mr. Zine’s views are his own and do not reflect the views of CityWatch.)

-cw

TRUTHDIG--Though the 400 to 500 women and men awaiting Bernie Sanders in the parking lot of the American Federation of Musicians in Hollywood represented a fraction of the numbers greeting him during the primary election, the turnout still was impressive—evidence of his continued popularity and support for the cause he was advocating. (Photo above: Sanders campaign headquarters in Los Angeles.)

For me, listening to him and talking to activists in the audience before he spoke was like stepping into a clear, clean lake after wading through the putrid muck of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton. I wondered where all these decent people come from, these folks I never see on television? Was I dreaming?

Sanders was in Hollywood Friday afternoon to speak on behalf of California Proposition 61, which seeks to reduce the exorbitant prices that drug companies are charging for pharmaceuticals. “The pharmacy industry is one of the most powerful forces in Washington,” he said. “They are getting nervous. And you are making them very nervous.” 

His oratorical style was as compelling as it was the last time I heard him. That was in May before a crowd that covered much of the football field at Santa Monica High School.

Those in the audience in the Hollywood parking lot were enthused. Sanders seemed to make them feel as though they were part of an inspiring cause bigger than themselves, just as he did during the campaign. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, she doesn’t have that skill. She is workmanlike, too cautious to dig into her inner self for the words and emotions that would send people away from her appearances ready to crusade.

What Sanders didn’t do was mention Clinton—a notable oversight, whether accidental or deliberate. That doesn’t matter much in California, a solid Clinton state. But hopefully he urges a vote for his former rival when he’s speaking in battleground states, where Trump wants to suppress the Democratic vote. There, Clinton needs a big turnout.

I heard a yearning for Bernie as I walked through the crowd talking to people before his speech. I also found a new willingness to vote for Clinton as a way of voting against Trump.

Mike Wong, a server with day and night jobs at two restaurants, said Sanders’ loss was hard for him to take.

“It’s bittersweet,” said Wong, a Sanders volunteer during the primary. “But it’s heartening to see Bernie endorsing causes and candidates. That’s why I’m here. The primary was painful. You invest so much into something you feel so deeply about.”

Wong, now for Clinton, had not decided what to do until a month after the Democratic National Convention. “I weighed whether to sit it out,” he said. He didn’t think Green candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson was viable, “and I don’t want Trump to be president.” In the end, he said he hopes he and the other Bernie backers “will hold [Clinton] accountable for Bernie’s platform.”

I encountered John Cromshaw, who hosts a program, “Politics or Pedagogy,” on progressive radio station KPFK. “I’ve never been a fan of Hillary,” he said. ”She has corporate sponsors. … I’m concerned about her militarism.” But on the plus side, he said, “she’s a typical politician who can be swayed with people who influence her. Bernie Sanders shows he is someone who can influence the course of politics.”

Not a ringing endorsement, but Cromshaw will be pitching for Clinton and against Trump on his program at the end of October, to be built around the theme “eight days, eight years—eight days to elect Hillary, eight years to keep her responsible.”

Wendi Blankenship and her son Jacob were awaiting Sanders’ arrival. “I was pretty disappointed after the primary,” Jacob said. “A few days after the Democratic convention, after Bernie’s speech [backing Clinton] I decided what he said made sense.”

“I think more people will look into Hillary—I hope,” said his mother. “We’re supporting Hillary now,” said Jacob. “She’s obviously the better candidate.”

Sanders supporter Stanley Chatman, who is African-American, told me, “Trump should not be let near the White House. We cannot have a sexual predator in the White House.”

The main item on the agenda, the drug-price control measure Proposition 61, brought Chatman to the rally. “This is something that will touch everyone you know,” he said.  The drug companies “will make a little less, but they still would be profitable.”

The measure would require the state to pay the same prices for prescription drugs as the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, known as the federal government’s hardest bargainer when it comes to buying drugs for its patients.

California state agencies spend an estimated $4.2 billion a year for prescription drugs for the state’s Medi-Cal (Medicaid) patients, retirees and current employees through benefit programs and for prisoners. That’s a small part of the $298 billion spent nationally on prescription drugs, but as Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik wrote that “it’s enough to give the state potentially massive influence on drug pricing.” Proposition 61 campaigners say they expect Big Pharma to spend at least $100 million to defeat the measure.

“They can spend all the money they want, but they are a bunch of crooks and we are going to beat them,” Sanders told the crowd. “It is an industry that is extraordinarily greedy and one we must stand up to … enough is enough.” He called 61 the “most significant proposition in the country today. … Brothers and sisters, work hard on this issue. The entire country is looking at California.”

This is part of the revolution he talked about during the campaign, centered on electing progressives around the country and promoting citizen action. Speaking in the musician’s union parking lot, with no national media or presidential campaign-sized crowds, is unglamorous work, spreading a message to a few hundred voters at a time. Hopefully in California, those voters will spend the next three weeks campaigning hard against the drug companies.

It was good to see the old warrior, fiery as ever, spurring them on.

(Bill Boyarsky is a columnist for Truthdig, the Jewish Journal, and LA Observed. This piece was posted first at Truthdig.com.)

-cw

WELLS FARGO SCANDAL--As the Wells Fargo scandal unfolded, in the back of my mind was just how the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted in 2002 in response to the Enron and Worldcom debacles, did not protect the investors, general public and the bank’s employees. 

Sarbanes-Oxley is referred to as SOX. It did not create much in the way of new regulations, but it did formalize how publicly traded companies implemented and enforced internal control policies and procedures. It also raised the stakes for key corporate managers – including the Board of Directors, CEO, CFO and in-house attorneys – as far as their individual roles in assuring that the controls governing financial and ethical performance were observed. For example, corporate attorneys must report suspicions of fraudulent acts to their company’s chief legal counsel and CEO. They can go to the audit committee if there appears to be insufficient effort to investigate. 

SOX also created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), or Peekaboo, as it is known by industry finance, auditing and accounting professionals. Peekaboo oversees the external auditors’ work, which had been largely self-regulated. Audit firms are now subject to inspections by the Board. 

Violating any SOX regulation could be worthy of criminal charges, yet few executives have faced charges, much less been convicted, under its umbrella. It is seemingly stupefying considering key executives must sign certifications as to the accuracy of the financial statements, but understandable when CEOs are shielded by sub-certifications their companies make lower-level managers sign, creating buffers. It is reminiscent of a scene from Godfather 2, where a lieutenant of the Corleone Family tells a Senate Committee how the Godfather had layers of people between himself and those who took care of the actual dirty work.

There’s an excellent article which emphasizes how the additional layers obfuscates a CEO’s involvement. 

But the impact on Wells Fargo’s financial statements was minimal, only $2.4 million. By itself, that would not create any stir on Wall Street, certainly not enough to push the stock price upwards. 

And probably not enough to subject John Stumph (photo right) to criminal charges, much less be convicted, for deliberate misstatement of the financial statements. Just think – the DOJ did not bother pursuing a criminal action against Countrywide’s Angelo Mozilo, so why would it start now? 

However, the phony accounts did create an illusion of long-term customer loyalty. One could argue that shareholders would be inclined to hold the stock longer than they otherwise would. Think of it as contrived price support. 

Regardless, it was fraud. 

It is almost certain that some of the sub-certifiers who knew of the scheme would gladly cooperate with the Feds and help prosecutors construct a trail to Stumph and his key people. Call it buffer-busting. 

The DOJ should also look to what SOX refers to as Entity Level controls. Also known as “the tone at the top,” these cover the corporate culture and how it affects the risk of circumventing the activity controls directly related to financial reporting. So, an overly aggressive marketing program, similar to the one used by Wells Fargo, may create an atmosphere of fear among the sales staff and lead to fraudulent actions. A definite red flag which should have caused the SOX auditors to dig deeper at Wells Fargo. 

In the end, why do we have SOX if it is not used to help bring down unscrupulous executives?

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

WHAT KIND OF CALIFORNIA DO WE WANT?--Politicians, housing advocates, planners and developers often blame the NIMBY — “not in my backyard” — lobby for the state’s housing crisis. And it’s true that some locals overreact with unrealistic growth limits that cut off any new housing supply and have blocked reasonable ways to boost supply.

But the biggest impediment to solving our housing crisis lies not principally with neighbors protecting their local neighborhoods, but rather with central governments determined to limit, and make ever more expensive, single-family housing. Economist Issi Romem notes that, based on the past, “failing to expand cities [to allow sprawl] will come at a cost” to the housing market.

A density-only policy tends to raise prices, turning California into the burial ground for the aspirations of the young and minorities. This reflects an utter disregard for most people’s preferences for a single-family home — including millennials, particularly as they enter their 30s.

In California, these policies are pushed as penance for climate change, although analyses from McKinsey & Company and others suggest that the connection between “sprawl” and global warming is dubious at best, and could be could be mitigated much more cost-effectively through increased work at home, tough fuel standards and the dispersion of employment.

Of course, cities and regions should be able to produce high-density housing which appeals to many younger people, particularly before they get married or have children. The small minority who prefer to live that way later in life should be accommodated on a market basis.

But density is not an effective way to reduce housing costs in a metropolitan area. Multifamily urban housing, notes Portland State University economist Gerard Mildner, costs far more to build than single-family homes. For example, the median cost for a room in major metropolitan areas is more than $100 more expensive near the urban core than it is on the periphery.

The case for NIMBYism

When people move to a neighborhood, they essentially make assumptions about its future shape. This can be achieved by zoning, albeit sometimes too strictly, but also in Houston’s more market-oriented system, which allows for neighborhood covenants and has spawned migration to a plethora of planned communities.

This is not a petty concern. For most people, their house remains their most critical asset. Yet, our clerical government pays little attention to the concerns of the middle class, and is all too happy to undermine long-standing local democratic processes on these issues.

Some density advocates suggest that their assault on zoning reflects market-oriented principles but rarely extend this laissez-faire approach to peripheral development, the most effective path to lower land and house prices. Under current circumstances, such limited libertarianism leaves middle-income people no protection against either Gov. Jerry Brown’s “coercive state” or their speculator allies.

In my old neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley, few locals looked upon the creation of ever larger apartments in the area a boon, but rather as a source of increased congestion that strained sewers, water mains, roads and other infrastructure. Yet, in Los Angeles, where “infill” developers tend to also fill the coffers of politicians, our neighborhood did not stand a chance of opposing densification schemes.

NIMBYs are generally stronger in wealthy (and often bluish) places such as Beverly Hills, Palo Alto, Davis, Napa and San Rafael. The anti-forced-density campaign is also getting stronger in already dense places like San Francisco and has engendered an anti-density initiative on the ballot next spring in Los Angeles.

What kind of California do we want?

Ultimately, the question remains over what urban form we wish to bequeath to future generations. Ours is increasingly dominated by renters shoved into smaller spaces and paying ever more for less. California now has the lowest homeownership rate among the top 10 states for people between the ages of 25 and 34. Not surprisingly, the group leaving the state most is those between 35 and 44, a period that coincides with both family formation and home buying.

Forced densification, and the ban on peripheral building, is particularly harmful to the prospects for minorities. Metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco have rates of homeownership among Latinos and African Americans well below the national average, even further below such liberally oriented places as Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio and Atlanta.

So why only two cheers for NIMBYs? Anti-density activists still need to come up with an alternative housing agenda. You just can’t say no to everything. Communities should embrace some new alternatives, both on the periphery and by building appropriately dense housing in redundant office parks, warehouses and, most particularly, the growing number of semi-abandoned, older malls. These areas can provide housing without overstressing the roads and other infrastructure.

NIMBYs are not the biggest threat to the California dream. That honor goes to planners and speculators seeking to reshape our state and limit the opportunities for single-family and other family-friendly housing. Until the state Legislature recovers some respect for people’s preferences, NIMBYs remain among the last, if imperfect, bulwarks against a system determined to weaken our future middle class, leaving ample housing the province only of those with similarly ample means.

(Joel Kotkin is the R.C. Hobbs Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in Orange and executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism (www.opportunityurbanism.org. This column was posted most recently at New Geography.) Graphic credit: LA Weekly.

-cw

ELECTION 2016--This election cycle has been filled with thrills, chills, and media spills.  Ugh, double ugh, and triple ugh.  If ever there was a time for cynicism and a focus on logic and "what will my candidate/this proposition DO" it's this year, when both major presidential candidates are justifiably feared for their personal character flaws.  And we MUST also ask what each proposition/measure will DO. 

As mentioned in my last CityWatch article a tough assessment of why so many governmental hands are in our face for more money is critical.   

The economy, despite what propaganda that the Pravda/Tass-like media proclaims, or whichever government outlet states, is NOT doing so great, and part-time jobs are too much "the new normal" while the City, County, and State budgets are (like the rest of us) hanging on by their collective fingernails. 

Public sector spending is NOT acceptable because it is NOT sustainable--hence the need for more taxes when we're already more taxed than virtually all other states, and the middle class is under siege.  So here's the big questions for any financial/tax/bond measure or proposition: 

Will the new money be spent well, is it already being spent well and is it a priority? 

To summarize: 

There are a lot of city, county, and state governmental hands in our faces, asking for money, money, and more money!  Our money. 

1) Vote YES on County Measure M--After being on the fence for the past year, it's becoming obvious to most of us that this measure is the most transparent and needed of all we're being asked to vote on.  The biggest complaint is that it doesn't go far enough.  But it pays for transit and freeway and road operations.  This stands out as the one measure that deserves our vote. 

2) Vote NO on County Measure A--I love parks and recreation, but a parcel tax is coming on the heels of many past, current and future parcel taxes.  Everyone should pay into this, and if we keep over-relying on homeowners, we'll see another Proposition 13-style taxpayer revolution.  I admit to being less concerned if this passes than with other measures. 

3) Vote NO (heavens, NO!) on LA Community College District Measure CC--What on earth is this district doing asking us for more money after burning through and misspending on lousy and scandal-plagued work?  Don't give an addict money and expect proper spending. 

4) Vote NO on LA City Measure HHH--This is painful for me to oppose one my personal heroes (Councilmember Mike Bonin).  He is responsible in large part for the aforementioned Measure M...but Metro has developed a reputation for proper oversight, while the city homeless czars have earned quite the opposite reputation.   

Will this $1.2 billion bond measure money be spent well?  Is this our top priority over our aging infrastructure?  We must listen to our neighbors and constituents and NOT let our City be a "homeless magnet"...but efforts to convert the West LA VA Med Ctr to help our vets should be lauded.  I applaud Mr. Bonin for all of his efforts, but I don't trust those spending this money.  

5) Vote NO on Measure JJJ--There are a lot of "feel-good" features, and minimum wage/residency requirements appear good on first glance, but the "Build Better LA" initiative is a cheap, tawdry distraction from the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative (NII) which will be voted on this spring.  The NII will demand we obey our City laws and build within long-overdue updated Community Plans. 

6) Vote YES on Measure RRR--It's only modest reform to the LADWP, but it's a good start. 

7) Vote NO on Measure SSS--If our public sector pension is driving the City into bankruptcy, or threatening our financial stability, why would adding to that instability make any sense?  Yes, our LA Airport Police Officers deserve a good pension, but the whole darned police/fire/public sector pension system is...just...not...sustainable.  Let's really FIX the problem, please?  Pretty please? 

So it's now on to the state, with a gazillion propositions.  I don't have the time here to get into all of them, but I'll address the most co$tly ones.  Let's recap and remember: California is NOT doing well economically because the middle class is under siege and/or has fled the state.   

There are NOT enough millionaires to pay for everyone, and if there's another Wall Street decline (it happens, you know!), then the loss of the middle class will be felt more keenly than ever. A guide:  

1) Vote NO on Proposition 51 (heavens, NO!)--Our K-12 population is stable or even decreasing.  Previous K-12 school building bond funds have been hideously, if not criminally, misspent (overpriced iPads come to mind).  See the diatribe above for more community college districts funds (NO on Measure CC).  Even the Governor isn't on board with this.  

2) Vote NO on Proposition 52--This measure is too opaque and vague, and too fraught with the likelihood of ill-advised spending/benefits for wealthy hospital CEO's, for a yes vote.  Do our hospitals need our support?  Yes--but this proposition is too vague without a more careful measure of how the money will be spent. 

3) Vote YES on Proposition 53--Requiring the voters/taxpayers to be able to vote on bond measures that cost over $2 billion is a no-brainer.  We've the right to deny Sacramento a blank check. And YES, our fellow voters/taxpayers can be entrusted to do the right thing and invest in our future. 

4) Vote YES on Proposition 54--Posting all Legislature bills on the Internet, changes and all, before it could vote on these bills is entirely consistent with the Brown Act and all "sunshine" acts. As with Proposition 53, this is a no-brainer.  It's called "transparent, good government". This is long overdue! 

5) Vote NO on Proposition 55--We were TOLD that the temporary tax hike on those making over $250,000 would be just that...temporary.  Folks making over $250,000 in THIS state are hardly poor, but they sure as heck aren't rich.  Furthermore, all the claims of "the schools need the money" should be answered with: 

a) Will this money be spent well?  Has the previous money been spent well?   

b) Is this a blank check?  Can the Legislature take this same amount of revenue and backfill it into our ever-growing maw of the pension crisis and/or special interests and/or prevent it from truly helping our schools, our poor, etc.?   

c) Will this further drive small business owners and retirees out of this state?   

d) Stop with the class envy!  If we're going to tax higher-income earners, can we at least allow for transparency in how it will be spent? 

6) Vote NO on Proposition 56--I very much USED to favor cigarette taxes, but these have gone up so high that it's amazing there's not more of an illegal cigarette industry than there already is.  There are fewer smokers than ever.  Choose a "better" sin tax, California!  And again...will the money be spent well??? 

7) The "moral" or "law and order" initiatives have to be addressed in a future CityWatch article, but PLEASE consider what the police have to say about them.  Laws and punishment have their roles, and throwing away the laws just to give us all a warm, fuzzy feeling inside ignores the rising crime trends that are occurring in our state.  LISTEN to the cops--they're trying to protect us! 

And please take the time to vote November 8, ya hear?

(Ken Alpern is 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.)

-cw

TRANSPORTATION POLITICS-Proposition M brings out many conflicting views held in the LA Basin communities and in many suburban areas -- viewpoints of what is needed in the towns, cities and communities regionally. Citizens are demanding better and more representative planning. 

This is important because Prop M is now asking for hundreds of billions in tax dollars that will set a course for spending for decades. Much of the conflict is related to the proposed commuter rail. Due to that extensive and expensive influence, there could be a lifestyle and economic impact for many affected citizens. 

This issue is critical because Proposition M does not work physically (can’t put rail in existing boulevards), socially (because of inequity and lack of social mobility options for many), or economically (excessive costs of new corridor impact mitigations). It will lead to over concentration of density (leading to even higher land and housing costs for the majority) and will require a behavior modification for many who would prefer a more convenient and direct means of mobility. 

Furthermore, Metro has proposed unworkable and infeasible additions to the transportation system that can’t achieve goals for better mobility or bring about a sufficient reduction in VMT and reduced GHG emissions as required by SB32; it also creates some rail redundancy that puts the whole system in potential jeopardy. 

Prop M is being rejected by citizens because of these conflicts and deficiencies. Everyone should take note because there are much better alternatives that do not require such excessive spending and actually are the technological future of transportation in greater Los Angeles. 

However, a basic regional commuter rail network and Metrolink are being constructed now, paid for by the existing Measure R and Props A and C. This is what Downtown LA wants and they are on their way to getting it – a DONE DEAL. By purchasing previous rail corridors at low cost, Metro has brought the basic network together along with Metrolink, which is good. The low hanging fruit is being picked. 

From here, however, there is a lack of available low cost corridors for urban commuter rail transit. The impacts of forcing such corridors through communities makes it necessary to re-think what is the best way to improve both mobility and the socio-economic circumstances for livability in our communities and region. 

Thankfully, there are vehicular innovations emerging for cars and trucks, as well as buses – innovations that can make Bus Rapid Transit truly rapid and with an extensive and very affordable network. These improvements support existing development; and it’s integral, not like old RR lines that were built away from existing suburban towns and city development. 

Prop M should be turned down and better planning should be prepared. It may also mean that no such future sales tax increase is needed. Both the presidential candidates and the government in general want to begin increasing Federal spending for infrastructure, so it is very likely the LA County taxpayers do not need to be hit so hard and long as they would be with the Prop M two cent out of every dollar “forever tax.” Federal contributions and better planning can make that possible. 

This needed better planning is consistent with not having over-development in the LA Basin communities. It would also turn towards making more urbanizing growth in existing suburbs, bringing sustainability and becoming a way to help achieve climate change goals.

Already there are protests from LA Basin communities about over-development and traffic congestion, a conflict that would increase with new rail-induced development. More rail and associated Transit Oriented Development, especially regional office and commercial land uses, would increase vehicular traffic and the intrusion of cutting through neighborhoods. This is especially so when rail is put into existing boulevards such as Lincoln, Sepulveda, Santa Monica, La Brea, Van Nuys and others, as has been referenced in Prop M. Such a tactic has been identified by the recent Westside Mobility Plan studies as resulting in “unavoidable impacts and increased congestion” plus intrusions into neighborhoods. Neighborhood traffic impacts and social equity impacts would increase. All of that would occur while VMT and GHG emissions are not being reduced. 

Fixing LA Basin congestion so there are not excessive GHG emissions as well as reducing the average length of trips in the suburbs with the proximity of urbanizing land use, is a strategy that can massively reduce GHG emissions countywide. It gets the County on the path to the transportation share of reduced emissions to meet SB32 goals. This is meaningful because Prop M will not achieve the necessary reductions in GHG emissions. 

As it stands, suburban towns, small cities and communities would not have enough funds to develop transportation improvements that work best for their communities in order to improve the function, livelihood and livability that is needed. 

So now we are at the point where community-scaled planning concerns and multi-community connections require a transportation improvement method. Since rail impacts the community scale and brings more congestion, a more integral mode for fixing LA Basin congestion corridors and helping to structure future growth to the suburbs is needed. That kind of innovation is emerging in transportation technologies in both vehicular and innovative roadway use, as we now read about in the media every day. 

GHG EMISSION EXAMPLE: If the LA Basin congestion were fixed in the Santa Monica Boulevard corridor and 405 corridor on the Westside, it would be equivalent to the Measure R rail GHG savings of gasoline. The Measure R rail program is taking almost 40 years to be built and more than $20 billion in costs. Fixing the Santa Monica and 405 corridors would achieve the same reductions in gasoline used, would be about one twentieth as much in cost, and would take about 4 years. 

By combining advanced vehicular improvements with advanced roadway architecture in selected urban corridors, car, bus and truck modalities are given improved function and become part of the general solution which reduces GHG emissions and VMT growth. 

It is evident that the suburbs and dispersed cities of the County want and need to plan for their own growth and sustainability, instead of looking to the LA Basin for job security. In that case, it means evolving existing streets into advanced roadways that support and structure community growth in a timely process, according to their internal needs for growth. 

Combined with the envisioned dispersed growth is the objective of reducing VMT by reducing average trip length, due to the proximity of needed land use functions as each community, town and city becomes more self-sufficient. 

If you have kept up with transportation strategies of reducing GHG in significant amounts, this will occur by increasing, each year, the CAFE standards of greater mpg for vehicles. This massive reduction in GHG emissions is now in process. 

The County TSSP traffic signal program for suburban streets, where signals are spaced greater than two miles apart, is very “cost effective” at reducing GHGs. In the TSSP program, along 220 miles of streets, this is equivalent to reducing 3.74 times the amount that Measure R will reduce -- and at 1/1,000th the cost. Another way of describing the cost efficiency is that $1 of signal synchronization is worth $4,125 put into rail development, as is proposed in Measure R. And more areas of the County can use TSSP.

In the LA Basin, already congested communities can eliminate congestion because “advanced roadways and advanced vehicles” can now come to our streets combined as digital systems. 

For this more urban context, where signals are close together, a new innovative roadway architecture can allow continuous flowing traffic, essentially doubling the capacity of normal street lanes that presently have stop-and-go driving. The LA Automatic Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) system gives the necessary signal timing and brings integration with other related existing areas of the street network. What would be taking place is the “digitization of roadways” in selected portions of the vehicular network, with the new roadway architecture facilitating “continuous flowing traffic” (CFT). 

An example of improvement with CFT would be the elimination of the 5 mph traffic congestion on Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood. Today’s failing 5 mph peak period stop-and-go speed has a capacity of around 300 vehicles/lane/hour and is emitting GHGs at about 2.5 times the amount as when traffic flows at 30 mph. A managed speed of 30 mph (not allowing slower or faster traffic,) provides CFT capacity at about 1200 vehicles/lane/hour -- four times as much than the 5 mph failing traffic flow. This solves traffic congestion and GHGe. 

In the I-405 corridor and its related cross streets from Sunset to Pico Boulevards, the area encompasses a daily traffic volume of around 680,000 trips per day. It’s a problem that a tunnel for vehicles or a single line of rail transit, however configured, cannot address. The congestion is inherently a vehicular problem where traffic to the Westside is widely dispersed north, south, east and west in the morning and collected again in the PM. So the congestion solution lies with advanced vehicles and roadways with high capacity. 

Metro talks about a “rail tunnel” going through the Sepulveda Pass, making a light rail line connection between the Valley and LAX. That would be one expensive line! First, finding a corridor from LAX to WLA, then the tunnel, probably under the 405 from the I-10 to Sherman Oaks or further, would involve enumerable problems. The rationale is flawed in that the through-travel demand is just 42,000 person-trips/day. Given the possible 40% attraction to a rail tunnel being just 17,000 person-trips/day, this would become way too low of a ridership to justify such a construction expenditure. 

A much better use of a tunnel through the Sepulveda Pass is for extending the Purple Line Subway to the Valley. That connection has the ability to attract as much as 54,000 person-trips/day ridership (70% of 76,000 travel demand,) in that it not only connects to Westwood and UCLA but goes on to Century City, Beverly Hills and the Wilshire corridor -- all the way to Downtown. 

A Boston Consulting Group (bcg.com) report warns about costly low ridership rail lines: “Rail companies may even end up in a downward (economic) spiral with reduced overall ridership. Rail companies’ overall unit costs for all remaining passengers will escalate because of the inherently high proportion of fixed costs in operating a train network. This could trigger price increases or reduced schedules, which would result in a further reduction in ridership.” 

Segments that include a costly “rail tunnel” with low ridership, too many low ridership commuter lines and forcing rail into boulevards (where mitigation is costly and there is vehicular competition,) would incur losses threatening to consume the entire rail system with costs -- setting a downward spiral for all of the County system. And the taxpayers would be required to pick up the cost of such losses. 

This is why better planning is required in all areas of the County. More citizen participation is needed to define exactly what communities, towns and cities should be. Greater attention must be paid to all the economic costs and benefits. 

Citizens, Prop M has the ingredients for creating a rail transit and real estate bubble which would collapse, leaving the County with bankruptcies. VOTE NO ON M!

(Phil Brown AIA, has invented the CFT roadway system improvement by research and development that has occurred over the last twelve years analyzing the Westside traffic problems and the socio-economic needs of Greater Los Angeles. Contact is available through the website FlowBlvd.com as well as postings of his previous recent CityWatch articles.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

VOX POP--On October 11, at a Los Angeles City Council meeting, Christopher Thornberg, the founding partner of Beacon Economics and a popular talking head, chose not to reveal a little known, yet important fact — he’s a paid campaign consultant for the developer-funded campaign that seeks to kill the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative and stop reform of LA’s rigged development approval process.

You see, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, a March 2017 ballot measure that’s sponsored by the Coalition to Preserve LA, seeks a much-needed fix of LA’s broken planning and land-use system. Even Mayor Eric Garcetti agrees it should be revamped.

But the Coalition to Protect LA Neighborhoods and Jobs, the misleadingly named campaign that’s funded by billionaire developers and LA business interests, is hell-bent on maintaining the status quo for developers, smashing anything that gets in the way of huge profits. Miami-based Crescent Heights and Australia-based Westfield are major funders of that anti-reform campaign.

Enter Christopher Thornberg (photo above), who’s often quoted by the Los Angeles Times and other news outlets and a founder of the LA-based research firm Beacon Economics.

According to the city’s Ethics Commission, Beacon Economics and Thornberg have been hired by the Coalition to Protect LA Neighborhoods and Jobs as a high-priced campaign consultant. So far, Beacon Economics has incurred $11,400 in fees.

Now cut to October 11 at LA City Hall inside Council chambers. An articulate, glad-handing Thornberg shows up in front of the LA City Council to deliver a presentation about the economic health of LA.

“It’s nice to be back today,” says Thornberg, “particularly to present all sorts of wonderfully good news.”

He makes a strong sell for more development in LA — and says that the reforms in the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative must be stopped.

“We know the propositions that are coming up,” he says. “We know the rules that people are trying to put into place…My only last message to you is: Please, don’t allow them to win.”

Thornberg adds, “You are seeing a growing interest in urbanization…it’s the dense, urban cities that are growing. And that’s a wonderful opportunity for the city to capitalize on.”

Defeating the reform movement that’s the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative and building more luxury development will also help wealthy developers — the people who are paying Thornberg’s bills — reap millions upon millions in profits. And often at the expense of lower-income and middle-class Angelenos.

But does Thornberg disclose to citizens who are watching the Council meeting that he’s a paid consultant for the anti-reform campaign funded by billionaire developers? Nope. Never.

That’s how things work at City Hall, where lack of transparency, backroom deals and soft corruption are the norm. And that’s why citizens across LA are joining the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative movement.

(Patrick Range McDonald writes for Preserve LA. Read more news and find out how you can participate: 2PreserveLA.org.) 

-cw

AT LENGTH-As we watch the bizarre and animated implosion of Donald J. Trump’s campaign tweeting itself into a never-ending spiral of defeat, there is something to be learned from this historic unraveling of a presidential campaign. 

The weaponizing of social media through political disinformation, the slow response of major media corporations to fact check candidate statements and the circus of cross allegations meant to confuse the public, should give us all great pause. 

Perhaps it is time for some serious self-reflection on the state of our republic and consideration of how the peddling of propaganda and misinformation, disguised as news, has corrupted our political process, while lessening transparency in our government as well. 

To this end, we have dedicated our cover story of this edition of Random Lengths to Project Censored. What else could be expected when the world of infotainment is merged with reality TV called Trump’s run for president for ratings gold? 

All democracies are dependent upon having an educated and well-informed electorate. Yet, what we have learned since the time of the Spanish-American War, if not before, is that media in service to either government or economic elites can sway public opinion to start wars, repress minorities and destroy the lives of innocent people who hold unpopular opinions. 

Social media made it easier for half-truths and outright lies to masquerade as facts. This Trump-inspired penchant for spreading false information and cyber-bullying is spreading by way of Trump’s followers and just about anybody who doesn’t like somebody. 

This kind of social media backlash that has exploded nationally is also mimicked locally. The Facebook uprising of Saving San Pedro this past year grew to outsized proportions as it fanned the flames of intolerance against the homeless across Los Angeles. Now the fire has burned the hand that fed it. That is evidenced by Councilman Joe Buscaino’s pleas to his constituents at his Oct. 4 town hall meeting on the Homeless Navigation Center. He was attempting to cool their vitriolic attacks on his homeless taskforce. 

“There have been personal attacks against them over Facebook,” he said. “It is unacceptable to threaten neighbors who want to make this community better.” 

Yet, exactly where was Buscaino’s cry for civility when these same people used similar attacks against former board members of Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council? They were doing the same and, in my eyes, a better job of searching for solutions to the homeless crisis. 

I find it a curious form of Karmic justice that those who were the most vocal in their insults and allegations against me, as then-president of the CeSPNC and the majority of that council, are now on the receiving end of the very same treatment. 

What you can’t find in Buscaino’s live stream video of the town hall meeting is the public comment period in which constituents ripped Buscaino, his task force and their lack of transparency when they proposed placing this navigation center less than 500 feet from Barton Hill Elementary School.

Once again, I accuse the councilman’s propaganda guru, Branimir Kvartuc, and others on his staff for blocking access to the public comment period in their video. From my perspective, this very unflattering episode was caused by the very ignorance and incompetency of the council office itself. 

I have it from more than one source that the council office under both Hahn and Buscaino knew that the renovation of Harbor Park, where Reggie the alligator once roamed, would end up evicting some 167 homeless people when that project was started. 

Elise Swanson, San Pedro Chamber of Commerce president and member of the homeless task force, was then-councilwoman Hahn’s district director. When Councilman Buscaino succeeded Hahn, neither he nor his staff ever called on or consulted with his predecessor on the matter.

Even after he took office, there were reports to the Park Advisory Board about this problem and the response then was as it is now—Los Angeles City Ordinance 56.11. It’s the municipal code that makes it illegal to camp or sleep in a public park, even in areas that the public rarely uses. 

Since that time, Los Angeles, at the behest of Buscaino’s office, has been chasing the homeless around like a whack-a-mole game, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, with only an exacerbated problem in the form of more homeless encampments to show for it. 

Surprise, surprise—who knew? Buscaino knew and he should have done the right thing before it ended up in front of the U.S. Post Office on Beacon Street. 

That our smiling councilman and his team of surrogates are now receiving the blame for the lack of transparency by the very people he has manipulated to take over the neighborhood councils is just too precious not to mention. 

And by the way, after that notorious Oct. 4 town hall meeting, those newly-minted neighborhood council members on the receiving end all adjourned to the Green Onion Restaurant on Sixth Street, to drown their sorrows—an alcohol fueled violation of the Brown Act. 

In the end, Buscaino’s council office, his homeless team and the new neighborhood council leadership will learn the hard way about transparency, true accountability and the necessity of holding open public meetings. 

It’s time to demand that Buscaino’s Homeless Task Force meetings hold public meetings with advanced notice, that his office release the video of public comments from the second half of the Oct. 4 meeting and that the Los Angeles City Council dedicates itself to the only legal and moral solution to the homeless crisis — providing shelter first. 

Perhaps the greatest lesson to learn from this exceedingly curious season is that civility and democracy start at home.

(James Preston Allen is the Publisher of Random Lengths News, the Los Angeles Harbor Area's only independent newspaper. He is also a guest columnist for the California Courts Monitor and is the author of "Silence Is Not Democracy - Don't listen to that man with the white cap - he might say something that you agree with!" He has been engaged in the civic affairs of CD 15 for more than 35 years. More of Allen…and other views and news at: randomlengthsnews.com.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW-Back in May, I wrote about the Hermitage/Weddington project proposed by Urban-Blox. A structure built in the 1930s would be replaced with a small lot subdivision of 26 condos with an expected purchase price of $600,000 each. The project had been granted a density bonus and would have environmental impact, as well as eliminating existing rent control, according to Save Valley Village.

Since I first started covering grassroots activism, I’ve listened to homeowners, tenants and neighbors express their frustration, anger and disappointment that their neighborhoods were being taken over by often unscrupulous developers with accomplices in City Council and on the Planning Commission.

I’ve heard neighbors blind-sided by slipshod planning approvals that have permitted an adjacent house to be demolished without the next door neighbors consent, exposing neighbors to asbestos and knocking down trees on their properties. Houses at the cusp of receiving Historic-Cultural Monument Status have been destroyed; tenants with disabilities and those on fixed incomes have been evicted from their longtime homes to make space for more expensive condos. Properties have been demolished under a loophole that allows “renovation” to mean stripping a property to a single board and some nails. 

Although all of these scenarios are mind-boggling, none of these situations quite reaches the level of shock value as the scenario a tenant shared with me this week. 

The story features lawsuits to determine property rights, plans to privatize what is now a public street, a handful of squatters who are believed by neighbors to be involved in criminal activity, drug dealing and stealing utilities. 

An activist shared with me that council members have ignored thousands upon thousands of pages of evidence on planned projects, as well as the legalities of giving away a public street to a developer. The street issue has elicited the attention and support of State Assembly Member Patty Lopez who has written a letter on the activists’ behalf, although the property is not in her district.

Let’s start at the beginning. In 1934, Clinton Lathrop, Sr. and Jean Lathrop purchased the land on which the property at 5303 ½ Hermitage sits. (Photo left.) This property now contains four residential units. 

Upon their parents’ deaths, Sydney Edwards and now deceased Clinton Edwards each owned half interest in the property. Sydney’s interest is now held in The Edwards Living Trust. Upon Clinton’s death, his interest has been held by his wife, Marta Lathrop, who currently holds one-half ownership of the interest. 

The sole remaining paying tenant of the property, Jennifer Getz, has been living at the property for over 20 years and claims she entered into a property management agreement with Clinton in 2009. Getz is currently in litigation over what she says was the expectation of first right of purchase, should the owners decide to sell the property, per the property management agreement. Instead, the property was sold to Urban-Blox, the developer that plans to demolish the structures as part of a larger 26-unit small lot subdivision.

UB Valley Village, LLC (Raffi Shirinian, co-founder and principal of Urban-Blox) filed a suit on September 7 against Sydney Edwards (Trustee of the Edwards Living Trust), Marta Lathrop and “Doe’s” 1 through 20 for Specific Performance for Breach of Contract to Sell Real Property and Damages. The suit states that the escrow was to close within 15 days after Getz has been evicted and removed from the property but on September 1, 2016, the defendants had communicated their intention to offer Getz the option to purchase the property. That case is in litigation. 

(Neither Urban Blox nor Mr. Shirinian responded to my request for comment.) 

If this scenario weren’t eye-opening enough, a posse of squatters has moved into the property. My source says, “We’ve done everything we can to get them off the property and are upset that it’s not working. A larger group joined the original two squatters, unloading trucks on September 2. They’ve been terrorizing and threatening the neighbors. Law enforcement has said this was a civil matter.”

(I confirmed with a spokesperson from LAPD North Hollywood Division that the eviction of squatters is a civil matter. The spokesperson also confirmed the property was currently in litigation.) 

On September 29, Sydney Edwards and the trustees of the Edwards Living Trust filed a forcible detainer suit against the squatters, who include Brandon Lee Gregg, Sean M. Mahavik and “Does” 1-10. In 2014, Mahavik was indicted on drug trafficking charges, possession to distribute a Class B Drug and trafficking in methamphetamine in Massachusetts, where he was allegedly connected with a Cape Cod meth lab. 

According to my source and a Los Angeles Times neighborhood crime mapping app, there has been an increase in violent and property crimes in the neighborhood. “The squatters are already going through the eviction process,” says my source. “We are not expecting LAPD to remove them, as that must go through the court system. What we DO expect is accountability for the drugs, the vandalism, the break-ins, the damage and harassment to members of the community. Just because they are squatters doesn’t mean they get to break all the other laws. The entire community has been compromised for no other reason. 

“At some point, someone does have to stop this. It’s completely unacceptable. It’s not unreasonable for a constituent to ask a council person to follow the guidelines that have been clearly outlined,” said my source. “Nobody seems to understand how permanent these decisions are. Removing a public street changes the grid and the layout of a community that was planned by planners who knew what they were doing. Councilmembers are silent. There’s not a word, despite so many people contacting them. Nobody is stopping the developers. The council people are giving these people an inch and they’re literally taking it all the way.”

What’s next? The two cases are in litigation and the PLUM Committee/City Council will have a final appeals hearing on October 25. Two of the South Valley Planning Commissioners (Maher and Beatty) have voted to uphold the appeal to stop the Urban-Blox development.

My source is appealing to as many concerned citizens as possible to attend the hearing. We’ll keep you posted. 

For more information, visit Save Valley Village or the San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Coalition sites.

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

Morris Brown, founder of Derail (a citizen group opposed to California’s high speed rail project) writes over at Fox and Hounds Daily that newly enacted California Assembly Bill 1889 is unconstitutional. 

Brown could not be more on the mark. In 2008, the California legislature had placed a number of protections in a Proposition authorizing bonds for California’s high speed rail line. These were intended as enticements to voters to approve the proposition. The legislature and Governor promised. The people approved. And, now the legislature and Governor have gone back on their promise.

In short, the legislature and Governor have revised the conditions of the proposition, something that requires a vote of the people. With respect to high speed rail (and perhaps other propositions) California has replaced rule of law with rule of men (and women). That this should have occurred with respect to a voter approved proposition is particularly egregious, since such measures (such as initiative and referendum) were Progressive Era reforms, under Governor Hiram Johnson in 1911, intended to permit the people to take legislative authority from the legislature and governor when they felt it appropriate.

Meanwhile, the California high speed rail project has become a legendary “white elephant,” with costs going through the roof and little hope for achieving the promised travel time between San Francisco and Los Angeles. 

Brown’s analysis can be accessed here…. 

(Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy and demographics firm and blogs at New Geography … where this piece was first posted.)

@THE GUSS REPORT-Alive and well is the perception that LA Mayor Eric Garcetti employs the same approach toward advancing his political aspirations that J. Wellington Wimpy did in the old Popeye cartoons: “I will gladly quash corruption allegations and throw whistleblowers under the bus if you make a massive donation to my next campaign.” 

For example, for nearly a year now, Garcetti, his chief-of-staff Ana Guerrero and LAFD Chief Ralph Terrazas sat on reports documenting the culture of corruption among some LAFD fire inspectors alluded to in my CityWatch articles on September 5 and October 3, 2016.  

Case in Point: The implausible overtime claims of Inspector Glenn Martinez. 

On the morning of December 23, 2015, department officials noticed that an odd proportion of the Q4 2015 overtime approved by Terrazas to help reduce the backlog of overdue inspections was claimed by Martinez. While his peers averaged roughly 40 hours that quarter, Martinez claimed 200 hours or about 40% of the total OT allotment.

When LAFD officials dug in to audit Martinez’s work plan for that day and saw that he already put in for a day’s worth of inspections, plus overtime, for time that had not yet occurred, they set out to locate him at the addresses where he claimed to be. 

At Our Lady Help of Christians School, Martinez put in for 6½ hours of inspection time, without having been seen by any of the onsite personnel, including those he would have needed to access the places on the property he claimed to inspect. Just eight days earlier, another inspector went through the property….in just two hours. It was a school building that had been closed for more than two years, which only required a walk-thru. How Martinez spent 6½ hours there is a riddle that solves itself. 

LAFD personnel looked for Martinez on and all around the Our Lady property at the time he said that he was there, but was seen by no one. Martinez’s time log claimed he was at the school from 11am to 5:30pm, after which he claimed to have spent four overtime hours at Occidental College, starting at – wait for it – 5:30pm, despite the campus being more than 6½ miles away.

(Martinez must have missed the chapter in the bunco playbook about taking into consideration LA drive time between one’s alleged victims du jour.) 

Records reflect that at Occidental, Martinez claimed to have spent four hours inspecting two buildings. That’s his modus operandi: take two hours to inspect a building regardless of its size and condition. The problem here is that the campus had, by that date, already been shut down for the winter break for 10 days. As was the case with the previous property, nobody (neither Occidental staffers nor LAFD personnel) saw Martinez or gave him access to where he needed and claimed to go. 

This is what prompted LAFD officials to dig deeper into Martinez’s other claimed allocations for those 200 hours of quarterly overtime, including similarly implausible inspection claims at USC, where he put in for extensive OT during much of the weekend of the USC/UCLA football game. That also happened to be the Thanksgiving holiday when the places Martinez said he inspected were inaccessible on his own, and whose safety personnel – who always attentively accompany LAFD inspectors – did not encounter Martinez.

That brings us back to Garcetti.

To date, the only thing he appears to have done in response to these, and other fraud allegations leveled against some of Martinez’s colleagues, is re-assign Deputy Chief John Vidovich who was dutifully doing his job exposing it. Garcetti’s removal of Vidovich from that role coincided with the donation of $350,000 to his re-election campaign, and those of his City Council successors, by the firefighters’ union which had become agitated by the reduced overtime of its members as a result of Vidovich’s work.

At some point, Garcetti goes from being the enabler of the corruption to being an inextricable part of it. 

It is time for LA District Attorney Jackie Lacey to set aside the perception that, for her, some in City Hall are fish too big to fry, or cross, and whether Garcetti and the Councilmembers took what may amount to bribery and conspiracy. If she is unable or unwilling to do that, the Feds should jump in. 

And while Lacey decides where she stands on enforcing the law, the LA Times owes Vidovich a public apology for its August 24, 2016 article in which it served as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Garcetti machine, a mistake it has yet to correct.

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a contributor to CityWatchLA, Huffington Post and KFI AM-640. He blogs on humane issues at http://ericgarcetti.blogspot.com/. Follow him on Twitter @TheGussReport.   His opinions do not necessarily reflect those of CityWatchLA.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

NO ON MEASURE RRR--The Water and Power Associates opposes Measure RRR on the November 8 ballot. 

Here’s why: If passed, it will amend the City Charter to seriously change the governance of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. 

We concur that reducing political interference in LADWP’s business activities would be a positive step. However, the proposed Charter changes do no such thing. Instead, these amendments would transfer the City Council’s oversight over water and power rates to LADWP’s bureaucracy. This would quash the appropriate governmental oversight of the policies and performance of this vital asset of the City of Los Angeles, while conveniently deflecting voter outrage for increased rates. We also believe that the proposed amendments would encourage, not deter political interference. 

On July 1, 2000, the last major revisions to the City Charter dealing with the LADWP were implemented. They culminated from the activities of two separate commissions, one appointed and the other elected, working over a period of two years with extensive and open public input. In the previous Charter Amendment process, the public knew exactly what they were voting for. 

By contrast, these measures were prepared in the proverbial smoke-filled room, with little public involvement, and they allow changes to the Civil Service Procedures through future Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between the labor unions and the LADWP, which the public is not privy to, subject to generic and non-specific requirements. 

The LADWP currently operates under a number of constraints that were approved through the same proposed MOU process, which the public would probably not have approved of, such as: required union approval of all contracts affecting union membership; a requirement that all employees affected by contracting out be offered a minimum of 10% overtime; and the Letter of Agreement granting generous Longevity Pay Bonuses originally intended to go only to linemen – a group traditionally difficult to attract and retain – which were extended to 86 different easy-to-retain civil service classes such as painters, roofers and plumbers. 

Allowing an open-ended MOU process, which the public is not invited to, to determine how the LADWP is run is not the appropriate process for making such major changes as substantially modifying the Civil Service System. 

The Associates agree that LADWP needs to be able to streamline but work within the Civil Service System; improve flexibility in hiring and promoting qualified candidates; and be able to fill positions in a timely manner. The proposed amendment, as written, could change many Department jobs from Civil Service status to “At Will” status and open the door to political appointments rather than merit-based appointments. The proposal also allows the Council to delegate the salary setting authority to the LADWP Board. 

In the 1930s, Los Angeles recalled Mayor Frank Shaw and convicted his brother and Aide Joe Shaw, for selling civil service jobs and promotions in order to fatten the campaign coffers of Mayor Shaw. While we are not accusing anyone of planning such activities, Measure RRR makes them possible. Allowing open-ended changes to this system, which has safeguarded the City from corruption for nearly a century, with neither thorough analysis nor full public participation is not the way to accomplish this. It benefits neither the LADWP nor other City Departments to curtail the interdepartmental transfers that would occur with the removal of the Civil Service System from the LADWP, as allowed in this Charter change. 

As stated in the Ralph M Brown Act, 1953 -- “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” 

The Department needs reforms, but they should not be left in the hands of the unions and politicians.   The Associates recommend that Measure RRR be rejected at the ballot box.

(Edward A. Schlotman is President of Water and Power Associates, Inc. Water and Power Associates, a non-profit corporation, was established in 1971 to inform and educate its members, public officials and the general public on critical water and energy issues affecting the citizens of Los Angeles, of Southern California and of the State of California. It also promotes preservation of the history of how the development of water and energy has affected the development of Los Angeles and California.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

 THE CITY--‘As I was going up the stair … I met a man who wasn’t there … He wasn’t there again today … Oh, how I wish he’d go away.’ 

This old rhyme states, in a nutshell, the way I think most people view the matter of homelessness in our country. Perhaps now, more than at any time since the Great Depression, significant numbers of Americans are living on the street. Certainly in Los Angeles, homelessness has grown to epidemic proportions. 

In all the years (nearly 40) I’ve been in southern California, the homeless have been present. I lived and worked for a long time in and near downtown Long Beach. My neighbors and I knew many of those who populated our streets. Some were considered to be colorful characters, harmless enough and not really much of a problem. The seriously-disturbed and aggressive panhandlers were rare and seemed not to be around for long. 

I moved across the bay to San Pedro and there, too, was a relatively small population of homeless. They congregated in a particular area of downtown and, for the most part, weren’t considered to be much more than a nuisance; a problem easily avoided. 

And then came the recession. Many lost their homes and never got another one. Social services and government felt the pinch, too. Even now, those with jobs are often hard pressed to afford the rent. As a consequence, we see the homeless hanging out in front of our organic food markets and sleeping on bus benches normally occupied by the people who clean our houses. Occasionally, suburban sensibilities are shocked when someone in a nice neighborhood looks out the window and sees a dilapidated vehicle inhabited by a scruffy individual who may not have seen a bar of soap in weeks or months. 

Spend some time online at Facebook and other social media sites and you will come to the conclusion that, for most commentators, the problem is not that people are homeless, it’s that they are visible. In my community, the response of the vocal majority of the ninety-nine-and-a-half percent who are not homeless is to dehumanize the homeless. These folks delight in posting pictures of the obviously mentally ill and calling them names. All homeless are lumped together as a class that is intellectually and morally bereft. According to the “commentariat,” the homeless are homeless because they want to be homeless. 

The good burghers’ solution for this situation: make the homeless disappear. Send them somewhere else. This is the ultimate NIMBY position -- not in my backyard, not in my neighbor’s backyard, not in my neighbor’s neighbor’s backyard. 

My city councilmember and his homelessness task force recently proposed opening a “navigation center” providing storage for the property of the homeless and offering them services. The suggested location on a commercial street was met with a barrage of criticism from the surrounding area. A public meeting to explain the plan was mobbed by a few hundred angry residents whose answer to everything was a resounding “no.” 

There are as many “solutions” as there are homeless individuals. I don’t know what the best ones are. But I do know what the worst one is: pretending it’s not your problem and wishing it away.

(Doug Epperhart is publisher, a longtime neighborhood council activist and former Board of Neighborhood Commissioners commissioner. He is an occasional contributor to CityWatch and can be reached at: [email protected]) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

SOUTH OF THE TEN-Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has hit the campaign trail. This past weekend he popped into Arizona to attend a campaign rally for a local candidate running for Sheriff. Normally this wouldn't interest me but a Twitter account I follow made a big deal of who the mayor was campaigning against, along with the t-shirt he was wearing that promoted an anti-police group. 

The Twitter account, @Near_Chaos, has a passion for reporting on the goings-on at the weekly sideshow called the LAPD Police Commission meetings. The meetings themselves appear not to have any merit -- loved ones of the deceased cannot get answers, nor can the Commission really reform the beleaguered department. 

At the core of the weekly ruckus are members of the Los Angeles chapter of Black Lives Matter (BLM). Members publicly protest what they and many others view as the continued disproportionate rate of excessive force used on people of the South LA community.  

BLM Members have camped outside the mayor's house in Hancock Park and City Hall. News vans spotted a cleanup crew at Getty House after it was hit with dozens of eggs. Some have been arrested trying to get the mayor's attention to this issue, to which he responds by either slipping out the back door or publishing an empty column in an urban periodical. And he’s also appointed African-Americans to key positions within his office – all this while supporting Chief Charlie Beck, who has yet to publicly reprimand any of the officers named for shooting an unarmed citizen. 

Back to this past weekend. 

Mayor Garcetti was recorded on social media at a campaign event for Maricopa County Sheriff candidate Paul Penzone, who is running against the infamous “Sheriff Joe” Arpaio. See video here.  

Garcetti prefaced his speech by referring to his strong roots in Arizona and commented that his family still resides there. He further commented that “Sheriff Arpaio is wasting taxpayer money” with his policing policies. Sheriff Joe is well known for racially profiling the Latinos in the area. 

Arpaio styles himself as "America's Toughest Sheriff." He has been accused of abuse of power, misuse of funds, failure to investigate sex crimes, improper clearance of cases, unlawful enforcement of immigration laws, and election law violations. He is currently facing criminal contempt proceedings. 

Maricopa county taxpayers are paying $4.5 million for Arpaio's legal defense fees, related to the racial profiling and open defiance of a federal judge who ordered he change his policies. Sheriff Joe did not comply and is now facing contempt charges. 

At some point during his visit, Mayor Eric donned a t-shirt that read, "Arrest Sheriff Joe," while standing next to a woman whose shirt read, "Arrest Arpaio Not the People.”  

The t-shirts fund a group called "Bazta Arpaio.” Citing 150 deaths in the jails and $140 million in related lawsuits, the group implores you to either donate money and/or buy a shirt to support their cause of ousting the Sheriff. Will Mayor Eric help BLM raise funds to oust him and Charlie Beck? 

Somehow the mayor has time to address the needs of the Latino community in another state, yet has no time to address the problems in his own backyard. The mayor is clearly sending mixed signals as it relates to his position on police abuse, both local and nationwide.  

LAPD recently came out from being under a federal decree, spearheaded by Connie Rice during the Riordan and Villaraigosa administrations. Through her nonprofit, the Advancement Project, she has joined other community activists in South LA by declaring a “state of emergency” in Los Angeles, related to the latest cases of police abuse.  

Mayor Eric Garcetti’s actions are line with an elected official who sympathizes with those who are victims of police brutality. Unfortunately, he is not brave enough to say it here at home and to use his political power in the way he flaunts it in other cities. On the other hand, perhaps his last two LAPD Police Commission appointments are saying it themselves via their actions during the PC meetings. 

Stay tuned.

(Melissa Hébert lives in Inglewood, CA, and blogs on community and political issues on 2urbangirls.com and is an occasional contributor to CityWatch. ) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

BUTCHER ON STATE PROPS-My oldest son, Matthew Benjamin Butcher, was murdered in a Los Angeles medical marijuana dispensary on June 24, 2010. It is in his name and his memory that I offer a few political recommendations on California’s statewide initiatives – to fight gun violence (Yes on 63), repeal the death penalty (Yes on 62), and legalize marijuana (Yes on 64). 

The LA District Attorney could have prosecuted Matthew’s murderer as a death penalty case. The men who killed him had finished robbing the store, packed the marijuana and cash into their car, took the computer and the security feed it was tracking, and left. Cruelly and senselessly, they came back, put Matthew and the young security officer who was also working that day on their stomachs on top of each other, and shot them both in the back of the head.

The men who did this deserve to die. 

But not at my hands. 

The DA could’ve justified the death penalty.

I’m glad she decided not to. 

Inmate A53710 is serving his life sentences in Calipatria State Prison and Inmate # A54227 is in Salinas Valley. If the other murderers are ever caught, we’ll endure another trial. Otherwise, that’s it.

We’re done. 

I’ve heard too many wrenching stories about the families of murder victims suffering through trial after appeal after trial. The decision not to pursue ours as a death penalty case saved us from all that and for that I am thankful; between the combined compassion of our prosecutor, now Judge, Deborah Brazil, and the amazing workers of the LA County Victims-Witnesses program, I never had to look at pictures of Matthew dead. Don identified him for the police on the night he was killed and while it may seem like a small thing, I’d prefer not to have that image floating forever through my already too vivid imagination.

Way bigger for me is what I’ve learned about the death penalty, jurors, and humans.

I’ll never forget how I felt the day our jury reached their quick, unambiguous verdict: 

“I watched the jury every day. From the days they tried to get out of it through the tedious days of cell phone technology testimony (I object! This is boring!) Once they knew there was no getting out of it, these twelve men and women, plus four alternates, paid total attention to every bit of testimony and evidence. Finally after three weeks of trial, the jury decided quickly. Each of them called out loudly, proudly: “Guilty!” 

I met them at the elevator, stopping the jurors to thank them, to hug them. One held me and murmured: It was our pleasure. Several others simply hugged back and sincerely told me they are sorry for my loss. Beautiful Juror #7 with the golden hair said yes when I asked if she’s a mom. Juror #8 bent his big bulk down for my hug as I told him he looks like Steven, Matthew’s “little” brother! 

I want to buy the jurors drinks, thank them for doing the right thing. I promise to respond promptly to every jury duty notice I get from now on, in honor of the jury in Department 102!

Justice be served.” 

- Mother follows Echo Park pot shop murder trial to its conclusion, The Eastsider, November 21, 2013. 

It was in that same news article that I understood the upside of it not being a death penalty case:

“Prosecutors were not seeking the death penalty in this case,” said District Attorney spokeswoman Jane Robison. “That means that when the defendants return on Jan. 10 for sentencing, they will be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.’” 

And they were. On January 10, 2014, the men who murdered Matthew were held to account. 

It turns out the reason the DA opted not to pursue the death penalty is because Los Angeles juries – LA jurors, that is – are loathe to vote for it. Even jurors who know the accused is guilty without a doubt. LA juries, apparently, reportedly have a really hard time voting to kill another human being. 

I find that so life affirming.

And counter to the opinion of other Butchers, it leaves me determinedly opposing the death penalty, in Matthew’s name, because of what I learned in the process of getting him a tiny bit of justice. 

There are many good arguments against the death penalty, and I’d likely oppose it even if not for our experience watching up close. The cost, the cruelty, the lack of deterrent, the ridiculous mechanics of actually executing human beings, the Constitution.

Who am I to make that determination? (The beautiful LA jury phenomenon!)

What if I’m/we’re wrong?!? 

On May 1, 1989, Donald Trump ran this ad in the New York Daily News, calling for the death penalty for the “Central Park 5.”: "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY!"  

They were innocent! 

The cynical might argue that what I find optimistic and deeply moral about Los Angeles jurors might simply be distrust of the police, and they might be correct, in whole or part; we all need to work on that. For us, the LAPD and the County of Los Angeles did their jobs in service of justice. 

The world only spins forward. I’m voting Yes on 62 to repeal the death penalty in California. I’m also gonna vote against the initiative which would speed up executions (No on 66). 

Also, in Matthew’s memory, it’s time to legalize pot. I’m voting Yes on 64! 

And finally, anything we can do to limit guns and gun violence is a yes for me! Proposition 63 is a novel, good idea and I’m voting Yes! 

I’d love to participate in intelligent discussion on these and the other statewide initiatives. I made a chart (below) using the Haiku descriptions of the measures written so very cleverly by our friend Damian Carroll.

Damian also did the local props (he is so smart and funny!) 

Everyone knows how wrong I think Los Angeles City Charter Amendment Measure RRR: DWP ‘Reform’ Charter Amendment RRR: Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!  

I love that Hillel Aron has named it the “Pirate Initiative” in his recent LA Weekly treatment: Pirate DWP Reform Ballot Measure RRR Has Some Going, "WTF?!"  (For the sake of accuracy, I was the GM of legacy local SEIU 347 and a Regional Director for SEIU 721.) 

The spending info here is from Ballotpedia, financials that were updated as of October 2, 2016.

+ Spending for Propositions 65 & 67 are reported as combined campaigns. 

** Measures 58 and 59 were put on the ballot by the legislature so there’s no ballot access cost data. 

 (Julie Butcher writes for CityWatch, is a retired union leader and is now enjoying Riverside and her first grandchild. She can be reached at [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.