LA TRANSPO: THE ‘HOW’, THE ‘WHAT’ AND THE ‘WHERE’--There is probably no shortage of LA County residents who want more funding on transportation, but it's the "how" and the "what" and "where" that leaves the voters flustered.  Big-ticket items like "rail to LAX" and "rail line between the SF Valley and the Westside are attractive, but what about the bus and sidewalks that are supposed to help us use rail?  And are freeway/road motorists to be shown ANY love, here? 

So, with the understanding that it's by far too early to "just vote no" on any proposed "Measure R-2 sales tax", because we DO need more funding for transportation, here are some key questions for this tax's promoters to consider: 

1) Reaching for more rail lines is a good thing, but do we have our current rail lines properly maintained and spruced up with sufficient amenities to please the voters and future riders? 

Every advocate of the Expo Line and of rail in general acknowledges either the lack of rail cars, lack of parking, lack of security, lack of bicycle/pedestrian amenities, and--most importantly--the lack of bus connections to make our growing rail network a "winner" to serve a new generation of riders. 

After all, the Expo Line (which cost over $2 billion) wasn't just for those who already use transit, it was for everyone who paid for it.  It's understood that the "smart planners" all agree that the rail network is better for some than for others, but disenfranchising voters/taxpayers at this time doesn't seem too politically smart. 

Does it take a failure this November for the "smart planners" to acknowledge they're not as "smart" as they think they are? 

It may not be sexy to favor operations and amenities over new projects, but if it's deemed by enough voters that our rail system isn't ready for prime time do the "smart planners" really expect to convince taxpayers they should pay for more of that? 

2) The Rail Connection to LAX is a great and long-overdue idea, but its glaring lack of connections already has more than a few community leaders angry--particularly with those regions not served by that rail connection. 

The "Friends of the Green Line" project long ago concluded that the best way to assure a regional approach to LAX and Ontario and other airports was to create the very LAX/Metro/People Mover connection now being built under the leadership of Eric Garcetti, Mike Bonin, and others.   

So maybe it's not fair to look at "the glass half empty" rather than "the glass half full" because LA World Airports, Metro, and the LADOT are all doing the right things for the immediate future.  They deserve ample praise for their amazing turnarounds and progress...yet there are two glaring deficits/gaps in this Metro/LAX connection: 

a) The lack of a true LAX to Downtown/Union Station rail line.  The indirect Crenshaw Line serves the needs of that corridor, and goes back to the historic purpose of that line, which was to develop that underserved corridor. Yet while the needs of residents living south of the I-10 go underserved--thanks to CityWatch for more representation there--the need for the rail right of way to be more than a bikeway will best be addressed NOW.  Talk it up as part of the reason to vote "yes" this November!

b) The lack of a true LAX rail link to the Westside, and to Orange and Riverside Counties.  The South Bay deserves an expedited Green Line extension to connect to LAX (which was predicted by the "Friends of the Green Line" group to be the second-most favored region to want a connection to LAX), but what about the Westside?  What about the Green Line in the east that fails to connect to Metrolink and SoCal in general? 

3) Speaking of a lack of a Metrolink/Metro Green Line connection, how IS Metrolink to be funded and introduced to L.A. County residents who want access to/from the greater SoCal region? 

Are there enough funds proposed in a "Measure R-2" to create a seamless connection between Metrolink and MetroRail both at the eastern end of the Green Line, and for both the Foothill and Eastside Gold Lines?  Are we supposed to continue to accept the endless blather of how "Metrolink has different governance than MetroRail" so that their obvious connections aren't created. 

Orange and Riverside County residents are just like LA County residents:  they don't give a rip about any excuses as to WHY the MetroRail and Metrolink connections to LAX, Ontario, Burbank and other airports aren't being created.  They just want them to be created...and they'll demand the county leaderships to work together to plan, fund, and build these links ASAP. 

4) Do drivers no longer exist in LA County to merit tax/revenue support? 

Uber and Lyft have their roles in ways that "smart planners" never really expected--which goes to show us all that the human spirit can do things that Big Government can never dream of (and yes, you can be liberal as well as conservative to draw that conclusion). 

Ride-sharing reduces car trips and allows an economic and mobility boost in all sorts of ways.  Raising revenue, encouraging job formation, improving our environment--these are all things that should be embraced.   

So is throwing up the rail projects as the sole top billing a smart way to pass "Measure R-2"?  Seriously...can't freeway improvements and road repairs be part of how this November tax is promoted?  And are auto commuters to be so maligned that their votes and opinions no longer matter? 

5) What about the role that Sacramento and Washington have to play in our transportation needs? 

Both the state and federal governments have shirked their legal and moral roles in funding our transportation needs, and the likelihood of promises to MATCH our local funding efforts is a vital winner to convince concerned and tapped-out voters and taxpayers.   

Because if our state and federal leaders don't promise to fight for matching dollars for LA County's efforts to "save itself", then the question of whether we're fixing or fueling the lack of state and federal largesse for transportation projects to benefit LA County will doom the November tax altogether.


(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.)


CITY HALL--Los Angeles City Hall is making pawns out of its homeless. It’s a shameless mess, but it isn’t that the way it always is – the poorest are the most abused? 

The problem from the City Hall viewpoint is that developers are not making enough money. As City Hall watchers know, tending after the profits of real estate developers is City Hall’s mission in life. CityWatch wrote about one example back in 2013 and a follow-up article in 2014.  

As the City’s own HCID department noted in November 2015, there is a 12% vacancy rate among apartments constructed in the last decade. That segment of the market is particularly important as it reflects the newest additions, frequently in dense areas such as Hollywood. As we may recall, for years the W Hotel condos could not sell even 20% of their units even after a dramatic price slashing. 

Some people call the manic CRA building in Hollywood the “Edsel Mistake.” In the mid 1950's, Ford Motor Company came out with the Edsel, but it entered an overly saturated market.   Also, it looked like an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon.   So too with these Hollywood Projects. Built in the modern 'Dreck' Architecture style, they also were aimed at a market which was saturated. 

Just as Millennials were reaching the family rearing age, the expensive Hollywood units came on-line. Like all prior generations, Millenniums move away from apartment living when they start families. Thus, all these projects, which were based on the false data that City Hall was feeding developers in the early 2000's, are still in the construction pipeline. But, the Millennials are already leaving. 

Ford was smart enough to stop constructing Edsels, but Los Angeles developers were not as bright. Thus, they continued with all their plans to build, build, build. In the developers’ defense, however, it was easier for Ford to retool the factories to produce different automobiles than it was to shelve a 10 year old plan to build a massive mixed-use project. 

As we recently learned, City Hall hit upon a brilliant idea. Demolish old rent controlled units and create a Homelessness Crisis. Then, the Mayor can ride to the rescue with hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Affordable Housing subsidies for building Affordable Housing. Wisely, Mayor Garcetti did not phrase the program in terms of Hundreds of Millions of Dollars for Billionaires. He’s not dumb. He’s helping the homeless — by giving hundreds of millions of dollars to billionaires. 

As we recently learned, the plan is working to perfection. The Mayor has a plethora of homeless people for photo-ops and he has a grand cause – give more money to the developers or more housing for the homeless. One must admire the ingenuity. 

Just where will the Homeless live while these fabulous new accommodations are being constructed? The streets, preferable back alleys. We need just enough homeless visibility so that voters are duped into increasing their taxes in order subsidize the building of luxury units while pretending to help the poor. 

City Hall has one overriding concern – more profits for developers. Everything at City Hall is seen through this lens. They cannot help it. For 15 years, the City has singled mindedly pursued this objective, and each year Los Angeles deteriorates a little more. In 2016, Los Angeles leads in all the bad indicators and lags in all the good indicators. 

Salt Lake City housed its homeless. Let’s not make the most vulnerable among us into pawns in a real estate shell game. Have we no shame?


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


PERSPECTIVE--I saw first-hand the reaction of a neighborhood group to the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. Jill Stewart, (red jacket above.)former managing editor of the LA Weekly and now the campaign manager for the proposed measure, delivered a crisp presentation about the initiative to the Valley Village Homeowners Association on April 20th. 

It was not a one-way affair; Stewart fielded at least twenty questions from the roughly fifty members in attendance for the Association’s quarterly general meeting. The questions reflected a strong interest in the subject. Her answers were frank and there appeared to be no reservations about them from the attendees. Thirty-six signed up to receive more information about the initiative. 

As with any ordinance, whether initiated by the City Council or through a ballot measure, subsequent enforcement is critical. 

For example, even though I am pleased with the proposed draft ordinance to deal with the problem of short-term rentals, will the city apply adequate resources to assure compliance if the proposal becomes law? God knows there is little or none in my neck of the woods. One such rental was cited by the City Housing Department last September. It was referred to the City Attorney’s office soon after, but continues to operate today. 

Section 11 of the NII enables an aggrieved person to take legal action against any violation of its provisions. Therefore, it would behoove the city to adequately staff its Planning Department to ensure thorough and timely reviews of developer requests for amendments. 

Stewart told the audience that developers are not going to pack up and leave the city rather than work within Neighborhood Integrity Initiative’s rules. The city will still be a good place to build, as it has always been. 

I can tell you that builders still find Valley Village desirable even though the community has a formidable Specific Plan, especially with regards to multi-unit housing, the SB 1818 density bonus notwithstanding. 

What about the additional planners the city should hire? 

Stewart pointed out how large the mayoral and City Council staffs are – around 500 in total, a number higher than that of the entire White House staff (I confirmed 474 from a 2015 report provided to Congress). She suggested shifting some of the budget over to Planning. Checking the Planning department’s 2015-16 budget, it has 268 authorized positions of all types. It is not typical to have executive support staff outnumber employees of a department providing a critical service. 

It will be interesting to learn of the feedback from various homeowner associations and neighborhood councils around town as the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative organizers make the rounds. 

If they have the same success in reaching out to them as Stewart appears to have achieved with Valley Village, then they will develop a diverse network comprised of knowledgeable people with a passion for protecting their quality of life.


(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].) Photo: LA Daily News. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ANIMAL WATCH-On April 20, 2016, the 2013 “Puppy Mill Ban” that prohibits the sale of any puppies, kittens or rabbits from retail stores in Los Angeles, other than shelter or rescue animals, became permanent, with the removal of the sunset clause.

With the customary puffery and halo-polishing that surrounds passage of any animal law, Councilman Paul Koretz assured the media that puppy mills were being impacted by the trend-setting “new business model” operating successfully in the City and offering only shelter animals for adoption, although his PAW Committee report lacked documentation other than the Best Friends’ heavily subsidized NKLA (No-Kill L.A.) adoption center.

Is Koretz factoring in the ongoing $15, $25 and “No Adoption Fees” events such as the “Black Friday Weekend Special” at the NKLA Adoption Center, which are an important aspect in making this “new business model” viable?

Is he considering the $300,000 Best Friends paid last year alone to encourage its NKLA partners to remove more animals from city shelters, according to L.A. Executive Director Mark Peralta, during his October 2015 report at the LAAS Commission meeting?

Koretz failed to cite any statistics on the number of adopters who were converted from buying a pet store puppy to adopting an adult mixed-breed shelter dog or whether any adopters were even asked this question.

He did not identify any independent former or new pet shops that are thriving under his law, which was also expanded to allow dog kennels, called “pet shops” with unlimited shelter animals to be maintained in any C-2 location in the city without a Conditional Use Permit.

Has Koretz even considered other sources that might now be providing purebred puppies or is he naïve enough to believe the potential closure of only eleven (mostly small) pet shops that sold live animals in Los Angeles changed the mindset of purchasers who want a purebred animal?

It was not long before the same activists who protested in front of Los Angeles pet stores and promoted the original ordinance (CF 11-0754) in 2013 appeared at LA Animal Services Commission meetings to demand that the Internet be regulated, and lamented (as predicted by opponents of the ban) that market-savvy puppy mills were offering to ship adorable puppies of any breed directly to buyers in LA. Imagine that!

Ironically, on April 20, the same day Paul Koretz and the LA City Council were basking in their humaneness, Los Angeles media ran the news that 23 puppies and young dogs being smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico at San Diego were intercepted by Border Patrol.

Daniel Canedo, the driver of the sweltering SUV in which the dogs spent 5-1/2 hours with no water in covered crates, said he was bringing them to Los Angeles.

All the puppies were unconscious and two appeared to be dead, according to reports. But, soon fresh air and cool water provided by San Diego Animal Services brought some of their limp bodies to recovery. Others required more extensive veterinary care to survive.

In a posted YouTube video, these do not appear to be animals taken from the streets. Most were estimated at only six to eight weeks of age. Many of them shared a similar appearance -- enough that they could have been from the same litter -- or the same puppy mill.

Although ignored by Los Angeles officials when passing the puppy ban in pet shops, the Mexican puppy-mill pipeline, which purveys especially small-breed animals to be sold in parking lots or any public location in Los Angeles (for cash), is not new and is reportedly growing.

There’s an established nexus between the upsurge in Mexican puppy mills and historical efforts to shame pet stores that sell Midwestern puppies, rather than enforcing the California state laws that strictly regulate the conditions and care of animals in pet stores.

As early as 2004, LA Times reporter Richard Manosi wrote that untold misery was resulting to animals and unsuspecting purchasers as an explosion of puppy mills in Mexico rushed to fill the gap caused by pressures on American consumers not to buy purebred puppies from pet shops selling puppy-mill puppies from the Midwest, according to Mexican Puppy Mills Breed Grief to Southland  (LA Times, June 26, 2004.)

In October 2010, the National Geographic republished a report on the growing problem, entitled, Sick Puppies Smuggled From Mexico for Sale in U.S., in which animal agencies and federal Border Control inspectors worked together to compile a statistical estimate of the extent of puppy-mill smuggling operations. 

During the two-week operation in 2006 the officers found 362 puppies being brought across the border that looked less than three months old, the investigation found. Ill animals were seized by local animal control agencies and later adopted. However, the healthy ones were left with the smugglers because it is not illegal to bring dogs into the U.S. from Mexico. 

Federal law requires that any imported puppies be isolated until they are old enough to be vaccinated for rabies (formerly four months, but California law was changed in 2013, lowering the age to three months.) Puppy peddling of these smuggled animals can generate profits of more than $10,000 a month, animal control officials said.

You would think the news of the April 20 smuggling incident would bring cries of alarm and outrage from Los Angeles animal-welfare groups, such as Best Friends, and legislators (especially Councilman Koretz.) Mr. Canedo was merely charged with 23 counts of misdemeanor animal cruelty and issued a citation.

Could their lack of concern over the future of LA’s underground puppy market be influenced by the fact that Best Friends has announced that at the end of 2016 it is moving on from Los Angeles and will not seek renewal of its rent-free lease of the Northeast Valley Mission Shelter?

What impact will this have on the shelters from which it reports having taken over 17,000 dogs and cats from 2013 through 2015 (2015 figures projected), according to their September 8, 2015 report?

Perhaps Councilman Koretz wasn’t told by Best Friends or Jim Bickhart, former Mayor Villaraigosa’s aide and Koretz’ current political advisor, that this “new business-model” pet shop is not really new, although both were aware. It has already failed twice in LA. 

The following is excerpted from a media release posted in its entirety by Rabbit Advocacy. It was issued on March 16, 2009, by Lisa Dulyea, Best Friends staff, announcing, “Grand Opening of Woof Worx features animal shelter rescued pups.”

“Best Friends Los Angeles Programs (BFLA) hosted an event March 13 to celebrate the grand opening of the first rescued pets store resulting from A Puppy-Store-Free LA.”

It explains, “Best Friends has been hard at work to find an alternative, and collaborated with Woof Worx (formerly Pets of Bel Air) on the idea to sell wonderful, healthy, purebred puppies that come from local shelters. For a mere fraction of what it would cost at a traditional pet store, people can adopt one (or more) of these dogs, support a business that’s doing the right thing, and save a life.”  

A later paragraph reads, “We are so thrilled to be partnering with Jamie Katz, the owner of this beautiful store, and to support her in her efforts,” says Elizabeth Oreck, BFLA manager. “We truly believe that traditional pet stores that sell dogs from puppy mills will soon be a thing of the past, and that a store like Woof Worx will become a national model for cities all across the country.“ 

There is no exact date when Woof Worx closed, but it was after raving reviews by celebrities at the opening and sometime before any Yelp review was posted.  

Just before that, at the January 26, 2009 LAAS Commission meeting, then-General Manager Ed Boks took a more cautious approach and received approval of a Letter of Agreement with “The Puppy Store” on Melrose Blvd. to create an “experimental, short-term pilot program [February 1 through September 1, 2009] to determine the feasibility of working with private pet stores to adopt animals for resale.”  

Boks’ report explained, “…if The Puppy Store can successfully execute and sustain a high-end pet store and achieve a reasonable financial return by selling only pets from shelters and rescues, it may become the model for other pet stores to follow.” 

There’s no specific date that shows when The Puppy Store closed, but a call to it a few months later revealed that the number was disconnected.  

Along with the “puppy mill” ban, Councilman Paul Koretz destroyed the ability of Los Angeles to regulate the very animals it claims to protect, and which are now part of an underground and Internet market that escapes monitoring or regulation.


The State of California enacted the Polanco-Lockyer-Farr Animal Protection Act to assure the humane treatment of any animal in a pet store and assure that purchasers knew the origin of the animal and were informed about spay/neuter. 

The legislative code is HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 122125-122220.

Here’s just one section: 

Every pet dealer shall deliver to the purchaser of each dog or cat at the time of sale, written material, in a form determined by the pet dealer, containing information on the benefits of spaying and neutering. The written material shall include recommendations on establishing a relationship with a veterinarian, information on early-age spaying and neutering, the health benefits associated with

spaying and neutering pets, the importance of minimizing the risk of homeless or unwanted animals, and the need to comply with applicable license laws. 

We can read this and weep over what Los Angeles has lost and the suffering to animals and pet owners that is already resulting. 

Wouldn’t animals and their new owners have been far better represented if Councilman Koretz had demanded that Los Angeles Animal Services strictly enforce all laws available to protect them in City-permitted pet stores and, for those that violated these provisions, assure fines were levied and/or revocation of their permit to do business was publicized?

That could have started an on-going conversation with the public, with parents and with children -- who often are the reason a pet is sought -- about the benefits of adopting a shelter animal that needs a home. 

Instead, we have condemned even the compliant pet stores who provided what our State laws required, and who might have been convinced to obtain their purebred pets locally, and be governed under the State’s Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act. 

Instead, Koretz made local businesses the “bad guy” while opening the door for puppy mills that we cannot control.


(Animal activist Phyllis M. Daugherty writes for CityWatch and is a contributing writer to opposingviews.com. She lives in Los Angeles.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

PLANNING GONE AWRY-If there are two words that joined together are a classic oxymoron, it is aesthetics and Los Angeles. Like most large cities, Los Angeles suffers from a number of forms of visual pollution, disorder and banality, including cheaply built buildings with mediocre to poor architectural quality, sign and billboard clutter, miles of overhead utility wires that further add to the clutter, a lack of consistent street trees and streetscape improvements and streets with cracks, fissures and broken down sidewalks. (Photo above: Walls of power lines line both sides of Lincoln Blvd.)

This ugliness is most evident in the unsightly commercial strip highways that crisscross Los Angeles, non-descript looking multifamily residential and commercial developments and inner city decay. As with most cities, the ugliness is not evenly distributed but is class based. It is tied to private incomes

and wealth. Los Angeles does have a few elite communities for the top 1-2 percent that are gorgeous, perfect in every way, and some additional communities for the upper middle class that are reasonably good looking but have some flaws. But beyond these top tier communities for the upper 20-25% the visual quality of the Los Angeles drops off precipitously. For the bottom 75% Los Angeles is a ugly, banal, depressing sprawl.

The smaller cities surrounding Los Angeles are nowhere near as unattractive. Most of them have buildings with higher architectural quality, business identification signs are controlled and billboards are banned, the utilities are underground or along adjoining alleys, there is a consistent canopy of street trees and street medians are often landscaped and their streets and sidewalks are in a better state of repair. This results in jarring contrasts when one crosses the boundary of one of the smaller cities and enters Los Angeles. 

Examples of such contrasts are driving south on La Cienega Boulevard in Beverly Hills and then entering an ugly looking section of La Cienega in Los Angeles, traveling east on Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood and then entering a miserable looking section of Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood that has been neglected for decades, driving south on Lincoln Boulevard in Santa Monica and then encountering an ugly section of the Boulevard in Venice and traveling northeast on Jefferson Boulevard in Culver City with its lush tree canopy and attractive, landscaped buildings and then encountering a barren section of Jefferson with few street trees and older, deteriorated buildings on the other side of the boundary line in Los Angeles. 

And there is the contrast between the banal and ugly Venice Boulevard in Los Angeles and the attractive looking Washington Boulevard a block to the south in Culver City. In the San Fernando Valley there are the same jarring contrasts when one drives west from Burbank into Los Angeles along Magnolia, Burbank or Victory Boulevards and Vanowen Street. Indeed, one can tell when one is entering Los Angeles because that is where the ugliness begins. 

For the most part, efforts to improve the aesthetics of Los Angeles have been sporadic and insufficient. 

The City of Los Angeles has never had a deliberate, comprehensive program to improve its appearance. With the exception of the small fraction of the LA covered by Historic Preservation Overlay Zones and the handful of Specific Plans that have design standards and design review boards, architecture is unregulated in Los Angeles. 

LA is a wide open free fire zone that allows the construction of buildings that are nondescript or downright ugly with the usual architectural “style” being the ubiquitous stucco boxes that lack the façade variations, ornamentation and sloped roofs that make a building charming and attractive. The only requirements that most new buildings in Los Angeles have to meet are the engineering standards in the Building & Safety Code to ensure that buildings are structurally sound so that they will not fall down during an earthquake. 

The planning system of Los Angeles is incapable of creating the beautiful grand boulevards that one sees in the cities of Europe and in some of our older, east coast cities. Creating such boulevards would require that buildings have a consistently high level of architectural quality and similar styles. 

While the City Council, after decades of voting it down, finally banned new billboards in 2002, thanks to the leadership of then Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, approximately 5,630 billboards remain in the City. These existing billboards cannot be removed due to a State law, A.B. 1353, that was quietly approved by the State Legislature in 1982 and which prohibits the removal of existing billboards through amortization schedules. Also, the 2002 ban on new billboards contains loopholes, such as sign district overlay zones, that still allow for the introduction of new billboards. Even though the City Council did enact an on-premise sign ordinance in 1986 that prohibits new rooftop signs and reduces the size and height of other business identification signs, a number of signs erected prior to 1986 still remain to clutter commercial streets. 

While underground utilities have been required in new subdivisions since 1966, there are still many miles of existing, unsightly overhead wires in the older sections of Los Angeles put up prior to the 1960s that are untouched by that requirement. A proposal for a program to underground those wires will likely be met with resistance due to its cost and that DWP has higher priorities for its funds that involve converting its electricity sources from coal and oil to green technologies and replacing old, leaking water mains. 

Similarly, a program to systematically plant street trees along the City’s major highways, to have a consistent canopy as in Beverly Hills and Culver City, will also probably face resistance due to its cost. Because the Great Recession of 2008-2009 reduced the City’s tax revenues, the City of Los Angeles had to severely cut back the number of miles of streets resurfaced each year and has spent almost nothing on repairing broken down sidewalks. A welcome development in this area is the recent settlement of a lawsuit involving unsafe sidewalks that requires the City to spend $1.3 billion over 30 years on a program to repair broken sidewalks. And with the economic recovery that has been underway since 2009 that has increased tax revenues, the City has been able to allocate more funds to resurfacing streets that have unattractive looking cracks, fissures and potholes in their roadways.

A key question regarding aesthetics in Los Angeles is why have the smaller cities been so much more successful in preserving and enhancing their appearances than Los Angeles? Because the business interests that profit from the creation of ugliness operate throughout the Los Angeles region, not just in Los Angeles, the smaller cities have faced the same pressures for “uglification.” Yet, for the most part, the economic interests have been kept under control in the smaller cities. In Los Angeles there has been insufficient countervailing power to keep special interests such as developers and the sign and billboard companies in check on aesthetic issues. 

Two City bureaucracies, DWP with is many miles of overhead wires and the Bureau of Street Services that does not have a program to plant a consistent canopy of street trees, are also complicit in the creation or non-alleviation of ugliness. One explanation for the inadequate aesthetic safeguards in Los Angeles is that, because the City is so large, the residents of individual communities who would like to take control of the appearance of their communities have been out voted by the rest of Los Angeles, unlike the residents of the smaller cities have a much greater voice and influence with their City Councils. 

However, this explanation is unconvincing because the Los Angeles City Council in effect operates as 15 separate cities with residents only having to obtain the support of their local councilperson with the rest of the City Council deferring to what a Councilperson wants for their district, which minimizes being outvoted. Another explanation is that the large size of Los Angeles, with each of its 15 Council districts representing approximately 253,000 residents, results in high costs for campaigns for Council seats. This in turn makes candidates for the City Council dependent on campaign contributions for developers and other business interests, resulting in politicians placing the interests of their campaign donors over those of their constituents. 

This is a partial explanation. However, a more likely factor is the political/planning culture of Los Angeles. As in most places, city planning in Los Angeles is highly politicized. It is an aspect of democracy and politics with the quality of planning being done depending mainly on the quality of the citizen activists that put pressure on City Hall. 

Unfortunately, for the most part, the activists have not been concerned about aesthetic issues but rather focus most of their attention on individual development projects that they deem to be out-of-scale and incompatible with the character of their communities. Their opposition has been to excessive density and height and the resulting traffic congestion. 

Other activists have been concerned about threats to the natural environment. Rarely have they been concerned about architecture, sign and billboard clutter, overhead utilities or the lack of consistent street trees along the major streets. And the only persons protesting broken down sidewalks are those who have been impacted by them, who have tripped over uplifted sidewalks. Hearing few if any complaints about aesthetic issues from their constituents, City Council offices then conclude that these are not problems that deserve their attention. It will require a major expansion of the range of concerns expressed by the homeowner associations, neighborhood councils, environmentalists and individual citizens in order to generate the political will needed to address ugliness in Los Angeles. 

If the political will were to be found for a comprehensive program to improve the appearance of Los Angeles, what would the program consist of? At a minimum, a program for aesthetic improvements should consist of: 

  1. Standards for architectural quality for all commercial, industrial and multifamily residential  buildings built in Los Angeles, as with Beverly Hills and San Marino. This would involve Planning Department staff checking building plans against standards of architectural quality for each identifiable architectural style, with the style to be selected by the developer. However, if a community decides that it would like to limit the range of acceptable architectural styles in order to preserve or enhance its character, it should be permitted to do so. 
  1. Enactment by the City Council of the sign and billboard ordinance approved by the City Planning

Commission that continues the 2002 billboard ban and contains very few loopholes. New billboards that are smaller and placed against the sides of buildings to minimize clutter would be allowed only if a much greater number of existing billboards are taken down. 

  1. A strong request from City Council to the State Legislature that it repeal A.B. 1353, which prohibits the removal of existing billboards through amortization schedules. Because a repeal of A.B. 1353 will face very strong opposition from the billboard industry lobby in Sacramento, Los Angeles will need to put together a coalition with many other cities and counties. Upon repeal of A.B. 1353, the City Council should then require that all remaining billboards in Los Angeles be removed in accordance with amortization schedules that allow sufficient time for the billboard companies to recover their investments in their signs. The City Council should expect and plan for lawsuits from the billboard companies over any ordinance that removes billboards through amortization schedules. However, billboard removal through amortization schedules is constitutional and has been periodically upheld by the courts. 
  1. A major program by the DWP to underground overhead utilities in Los Angeles, to be financed by a temporary surcharge on DWP bills. To reduce the cost the program should be limited to undergrounding the wires along the major and secondary highways and some collector streets which, due to their high traffic volumes, are the most visible parts of Los Angeles. To further reduce the annual cost of the program should be spread out over 20-30 years. 
  1. A major program by the Urban Forestry Division of the Bureau of Street Services to systematically   plant street plant street trees along the major and secondary highways of Los Angeles, where there presently are gaps in the tree canopy or trees that are too small. To reduce the annual cost, this program should be spread out over 15-20 years. 
  1. Increased budget allocations for street resurfacing, to resurface all streets with cracks and potholes on an accelerated schedule.   In addition, implementation of the recent court settlement requiring the City to establish a program to repair broken down sidewalks. 
  1. Economic and planning studies on the feasibility of bringing about the redevelopment of the City’s

many unsightly commercial strip highways into grand, mixed use boulevards, as called for by the Framework Element of the General Plan. Enactment of plans and ordinances containing incentives to bring about their redevelopment. 

  1. Economic development programs to bring new and higher paying jobs to deteriorated low-income communities, to raise incomes so that it will be more feasible for developers to redevelop those communities. The development programs should look into the feasibility of re-industrializing Los Angeles, to offset the de-industrialization that has taken place during the past 40 years. Also, the City Council’s recent action to require a higher minimum wage in Los Angeles will assist in raising incomes in poor communities.   

Of the items programs on this list, five (No.s 2,3,4,5 & 6) are directly under the control of government and are not closely tied the health of the economy of Los Angeles. The remaining three (Nos. 1, 7 & 8) are dependent in part on whether development activity can be redirected towards the low income communities. Standards for architectural quality, for example, will have a minimal impact if there is little or no new construction for the standards to regulate. And the commercial strip highways in low income communities cannot be improved if there is no new development along them. 

The large accumulation of ugliness in Los Angeles is, in the end, a result of a lack of political will, of insufficient countervailing power against the economic interests and government agencies that have created it.  It will require expanded citizen activism to overcome opposition from the interests that profit from the ugliness and the inertia of the City’s bureaucracies. The limited amount of such activism in the past is the main reason for the unattractiveness of much of Los Angeles. As Shakespeare said in his play, Julius Caesar, “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars. It lies with us”.


(John Issakson is a planning activist living in Los Angeles.)   Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.


BILLBOARD WATCH-Despite the unanimous opposition of the City Planning Commission, an LA City Council committee is pushing ahead with a plan that could ultimately result in new digital billboards going up in a wide area of the city. 

Last fall, the planning commission approved a new citywide sign ordinance that restricts the brightly-lighted signs with rapidly changing ads to special sign districts in a limited number of high-intensity commercial areas. At a meeting this week, the council’s Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) committee (photo above) turned a cold shoulder to that idea, and directed three city departments to jointly develop detailed proposals for allowing the currently prohibited signs outside those restricted areas, either on city-owned property or on both public and private property. 

Committee chairman Jose Huizar (left, above) said these proposals need to include revenue sharing to the city, funding for sign law enforcement, and the removal of billboards blighting various neighborhoods. This is an about-face from 2015, when Huizar was running for re-election and his answer to a candidates’ questionnaire seemed to support restricting digital billboards to sign districts. 

Committee members Felipe Fuentes and Marqueece Harris-Dawson both complained that the City Planning Commission’s restriction of new digital billboards to sign districts wouldn’t result in the removal of billboard blight from their districts, in the east San Fernando Valley and South LA., respectively. 

The ordinance approved by the planning commission requires that new digital billboards in sign districts be offset by the takedown of existing billboards in surrounding communities at a square footage ratio of ten to one. In that ordinance, sign districts are only allowed in 22 areas of the city zoned regional center or regional commercial, such as downtown, Universal City, Warner Center, LAX, Century City, and the Coliseum/USC area, among others. 

There are no sign district-eligible areas in Fuentes’s district, but there are two in an adjacent district, in Van Nuys and Panorama City. The ordinance approved by the Planning Commission doesn’t limit the required billboard takedown to a specific distance from a sign district, and commissioners discussed expanding the takedown area to the entire city, although that provision wasn’t included in the final version of the ordinance. 

At the committee meeting, Harris-Dawson called many of the existing billboards in his district “a big, giant sore thumb.” That district includes a sizeable sign district-eligible area in the Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw Plaza commercial area, and under the planning commission’s ordinance a new full-size digital billboard could be put up there only if 10 full-size billboards or a larger number of smaller billboards were first removed in the surrounding community. 

Neither Fuentes nor Harris-Dawson mentioned the fact that a city survey has shown that more than a hundred billboards in those councilmembers’ districts have either been erected or altered without required permits. In a letter to the PLUM committee last year, City Attorney Mike Feuer said his office was ready to help take enforcement action against many billboards across the city that fall into that category, but to date the committee members haven’t responded to that offer. 

There was little discussion by committee members about the city’s prospect of getting revenue from new digital billboards, although that’s been a central point of a vigorous lobbying campaign by a coalition of billboard companies that wants to put up an untold number of new digital billboards along freeways and city streets. That coalition includes the three largest billboard operators in the city -- Clear Channel, Outfront Media and Lamar Advertising. 

Councilmember Paul Krekorian has put forth a proposal to allow new digital billboards on city-owned property in exchange for a share of revenue and the takedown a certain number of existing billboards, but the councilmember’s proposal leaves details such as the exact number of new billboards and their locations to be worked out. 

Councilman Gil Cedillo, a PLUM committee member, floated a proposal two years ago to allow new digital billboards in any commercial area through a conditional use permit process. And Clear Channel, which owns 84 digital billboards that have been shut off by court order since 2013, has pushed for city permission to relocate some of those billboards, ostensibly to locations where they aren’t as likely to generate complaints from nearby residential neighborhoods. 

All those proposals got a firm thumbs down from the Planning Commission, whose members agreed that any digital signs should be restricted to sign districts where their size, brightness, and hours of operation could be strictly regulated to minimize potential traffic hazards, light pollution, and adverse affects on surrounding residential neighborhoods. 

The major billboard companies have long opposed these restrictions, and while none have publicly commented on Krekorian’s proposal, it’s unlikely that they are happy with the prospect of being allowed new digital billboards only on a limited number of properties owned by the city. 

In fact, Lamar Advertising sued the city in 2013 for the right to put up 45 new digital billboards in specific locations in a wide area of the city. The Louisiana-based company won a favorable ruling from a Los Angeles Superior Court judge, but the California Appeals Court overturned that ruling earlier this year, upholding the city’s right to ban those signs. 

Another 2014 proposal, by committee member Mitchell Englander, called for granting “amnesty” to all unpermitted and out-of-compliance billboards in the city, but there was no mention of it at this week’s meeting. The Planning Commission emphatically rejected the idea, calling instead for the city to begin enforcing the law against all illegal billboards. 

Neither Englander nor Cedillo commented on the planning commission’s action during this week’s PLUM committee meeting. Both councilmembers, as well as Huizar, have received significant financial support from billboard companies in their past election campaigns. And Englander has gotten a number of campaign contributions from billboard companies and their lobbyists in his current bid for election in November to the LA County Board of Supervisors.


(Dennis Hathaway is the president of the Ban Billboard Blight Coalition and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

HYPOCRISY POLITICS--The best way to understand LA City Council shenanigans is to watch its meetings as I sometimes do -- hanging upside down on my Teeter inversion table. It clarifies the revisionist, upside-down declarations of politicians living in a bubble. 

Earlier this month, I wrote about how Councilmembers honored the “well-respected” alums of a local high school that included a felon awaiting sentencing who used to run the LA Sheriff’s department; a late LAPD chief whose abuse of the poor and minorities led to a deadly riot; an innately dishonest former city attorney; and a compulsive gambling sexist. #Charming 

It was as if the city’s fifteen lawmakers were reassuring themselves that their malfeasance of today will be blurred and distorted by future Councilmembers. 

Last week, their latest delusion surrounded a presentation to declare it Denim Day in Los Angeles, which raises awareness of the horrors of rape. But oh how the Councilmembers scattered when the public reminded the viewers of City Council’s own record regarding sexual harassment charges. 

In language that is utterly constitutional, but too colorful to share here, gadfly and former teacher John Walsh correctly cited City Council’s endless rubber stamping of liquor licenses “for convenience,” especially in poor communities, that contribute to crime -- including, but hardly limited to, rape. 

Also cited was the city’s incessant licensing of, and failure to close down unlicensed businesses marketing in human sex trafficking in which the victims are, if not raped in a stranger-on-stranger sense, are coercively raped by fear of pimp violence or economic harm.  

Councilmember Paul Krekorian, an attorney whose children includes a young daughter, who regularly attempts to throw public commenters off their timing by suggesting that aired concerns are “off-topic,” was unable to silence the critics in his appeal to the deputy city attorney who makes such determinations.  

Krekorian, who currently faces a recall effort, bounced animatedly in his chair and hurriedly walked in protest toward Council President Herb Wesson’s elevated podium despite the city attorney’s ruling, as the subject turned to the accusations of sexual harassment and coercive sexual misconduct of fellow Councilmembers Mitch Englander and Jose Huizar -- both of whom are married fathers of young women and girls, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars paid by the city in settlements and legal fees related to those accusations. 

It continues to be lost upon our city officials that it is inherently sexual harassment, and coercive rape, when a boss has sex, whether once or a hundred times, with anyone who works in his or her office.

Even if it was a “consensual” relationship, it is coercive rape if the consequences of not having sex with the boss could result in economic harm to, for example, a single mother or a staffer who wants some day to run for office and seeks her boss’s endorsement. 

That is what may have happened when Francine Godoy, a former staffer in Huizar’s office, sued the city for sexual harassment. From 2006 to 2013, her salary jumped 280%, a rate considerably faster than others in his office received at a time of claimed city cutbacks, because she and Huizar (a graduate of Berkeley, Princeton and UCLA Law School) had a “consensual” relationship, according to him, in which she also sought his support for a political run. The taxpayers eventually paid $200,000 in legal fees, while it is unknown whether or how much Huizar may have paid Godoy to settle the case. She moved on to another job in the city, and he breathed a sigh of relief. 

Council President Herb Wesson, who has referred to Huizar as “my best friend” and supported his re-election, also held his head and urged the deputy city attorney – to no avail – to silence the speakers when the subject turned to Councilmember Mitch Englander. 

Englander is also in denial about sexual harassment claims by former staffer Melody Jaramillo against himself and his chief of staff John Lee. 

Englander has said that the $75,000 settlement paid to Jaramillo was for financial and legal expedience, yet he earlier favored squandering $600,000 to defend the city in the damages phase of David “Zuma Dogg” Saltsburg’s winning 1st Amendment suit against the city rather than paying him even a sliver of that amount for expedience. 

The men who approved these settlements, Mayor Eric Garcetti, City Attorney Mike Feuer and Wesson, who are fathers or grandfathers of young women and girls, have yet to publicly condemn any of these specific actions – let alone declare the inappropriateness of having sex with the office staff – because, at LA City Hall, protecting their own, not your own, seems to be Job #1.


(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a writer who lives in Los Angeles and blogs on humane issues at http://ericgarcetti.blogspot.com/.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EDUCATION POLITICS--“We can’t be measured with numbers. We’re more than numbers. We’re human beings.” The presidential primaries are putting a huge emphasis on political engagement among our youth, but some youth are cutting their political teeth on issues closer to home. 

At Venice High School, two students have started the Union of Venice Students to inform their classmates about their rights, especially the right to opt out of standardized tests. 

The students, Cobalt and Ruben, were inspired by the movie Defies Measurement, a documentary that traces the transformation of an Oakland, California school from a creative, nurturing incubator for students into a test prep institution. The documentary is a moving portrayal of corporate education reforms sucking the life out of a school. 

Armed with detailed information and plenty of passion, the Union of Venice Students is imploring their classmates to get engaged and opt out of the upcoming standardized tests.

I interviewed these courageous and intelligent activists after a copy of their no-longer-underground newspaper Venice Posted found its way to me. 

PS: So how did you get involved in student politics? 

Ruben: The school system is here for us. It’s always been a philosophy of mine, but with the student union, I felt as though it would be a powerful way for us to really kind of establish that philosophy among our fellow peers. Get more and more students involved in what’s going on in our education system. 

Cobalt: My focus on the union is awareness of rights. Because in state law, with education code and all that, there are all these rights that students have. But students don’t know they have these rights and the administration doesn’t recognize these rights. So that, I think, is one of the main forces of evil. 

PS: Evil is a pretty big opponent, but you don’t strike me as someone Waiting for Superman. How are you fighting evil? 

Ruben: Last semester I sent an email to our principal where my stance was on the Smarter Balanced test and I was kind of asking her why she was putting so much pressure on it. I told her Instead of focusing on these exams, we should maybe focus on making the school better. Ya know? Well, she really rebuffed it and kinda said, ‘oh, just meet with me in person’. I really wanted something in writing, too, to see what her stance was on it. 

PS: Why? 

Ruben: I felt it’s more clear what her position is and there’s no miscommunication, where, ‘I heard she said this.’ Having it in writing is what she said, to make it more clear. 

PS: Is this the first time you’ve considered political action? 

Cobalt: I’ve always been sort of saying ‘hey, I’ve got this right and I should be allowed to exercise this right’. It has gotten me into some trouble in the past.

One of the rules at school is you’re not allowed to wear hats that don’t have the Venice High School logo on it. But I always saw that as infringing on my free speech. So I have this hat with a red star on it that I bought when I was in China. And I always wear that. Then this year I got called out on it. I was in the Dean’s office for three hours while they basically told me that if I didn’t agree to follow this rule they were going to send me out of the school. That’s how that ended, I sort of stopped wearing the hat because I wanted to focus more on organizing this so we could have a larger body with more strength than just one person wearing his hat. 

PS: Kind of the opposite of a dunce cap. What else? 

Cobalt: The [administration] is putting in a lot of things to convince students that you’re better off taking the test. She’s bringing back the policy of Off-campus passes for seniors next year. The requirements are you have to have 3.0 GPA, high attendance, and you have to have taken the Smarter Balanced test. There’s also, I’ve heard talk of local businesses giving money to the school for every student that takes the test and some teachers are only going to sign you letters of recommendation [for college] if you take the test. 

PS: So is that the typical response from your teachers?

Ruben: We have an interesting response from teachers. Either you’re completely for the test or you’re completely against the test. That’s something we’ve noticed, a trend. Several teachers have approached us telling us to kind of quiet down, I want to say, with our distribution of our newsletter, and other teachers are completely endorsing us like ‘yeah, I’m with you 100%’. But they don’t want to put it out there and, really stay out of trouble with the administration. I thought that was an interesting trend. 

PS: Has the administration talked with you about your activism? 

Cobalt: Not directly. She went to [our teacher] and told him to tell us to stop. He basically said, ‘I’m not in charge of them. They have this right to do that.’ She’s never actually come to us directly. She’s always tried to go indirectly around or talked to someone else to tell them to tell us to stop. 

Ruben: More recently, she’s told all of my teachers. They’ve got pressure from the administration to tell us to stop distributing this newsletter. 

PS: New York State had 200,000 opt outs last year. How many did Venice High have? 

Cobalt: Last year, I feel like the bulk of the opt out movement was because it was happening at the same time as the AP tests, and not having anything to do with the whole standardized testing in general. 

We’ve noticed that it seems to be flipping around this year. A lot of the people who have been telling me, “oh yeah, I’m definitely going to opt out’, most of the people who I feel like  I’ve been hitting the most with this message are people who aren’t in AP classes. The people who seem to be in opposition to the movement the most are the ones who are in the AP classes. 

Ruben: I think they’re just trying to be as much of a scholarly student as they possibly can. 

Cobalt: There’s also a lot of propaganda going around about the test. Like if you don’t take this test your life is not going to be able to be good. You’re not going to be able to have a good college education. You have to take this test. It’s almost being brainwashed into some people that, this test, you have to take it. 

PS: Last election, someone named Marshall Tuck ran against our State Superintendent on the platform that the Ed Code is too long and cumbersome for adults to understand. What do you think? 

Cobalt: Ever since I’ve been getting into issues regarding free speech and stuff, I’ve gotten myself well versed in several sections of the Ed Code. 

Ruben: He knows them like the palm of his hand. 

Cobalt: Like, that one is Section 60615. I think it clearly says that these tests, you can’t be forced to take them, and the parent does have the right to opt them out. But I do feel like it should be worded as more of an explicit right and less of a ‘this is something you can do’. I feel like if it was listed as more of an explicit right, then that would, ya know, like all the things that are happening like with the principal saying, ‘you have to take the test in order to get this thing’, I feel like that would sort of stop because you can’t be punished for exercising your right. 

PS: After some parents sued their school district, LAUSD has actually told schools they have to send a letter home informing parents of the right to opt out. 

Cobalt: Yeah, I don’t think we’ve gotten that. 

PS: What do you think about the idea that parents just want to look at a school's overall test score to decide on a school for their kids? What do you say to them? 

Cobalt: For me, when I was looking at schools, we first were looking around and my mom had found this school because of the foreign language magnet. I had always been into foreign languages. She said oh let’s go here. We went to the tour, one thing we noticed on the tour was the tour was being run by students and they were all happy to be at school and they loved the program and they were all talking about the activities and the clubs they were involved in, the classes they were taking. 

Someone mentioned that there was a trip to China they took with the Chinese class and that’s really what got me to want to come to this school. And then I went to another school and the entire first hour of the tour was sitting in the library watching a presentation, a power point where they were talking about their curriculum and what they focus on and then going through their test scores, like a chart or graph of their test scores and you didn’t actually get to see the classes. What I liked about this school’s tour was that we went into a lot of classes. The other school, we didn’t go into any classes. It was just focusing on these scores and numbers that didn’t mean anything. 

PS: You’ve been handing out the opt out forms. Do people get it? 

Cobalt: Some people do. If they read the newspaper. I wanted to distribute it with the newspaper but I didn’t have enough copies printed. That was the only problem. So we’re going to have an Opt Out Day. We were originally planning to all stand out on the front lawn and make a large line and hand them out. Have a couple extra copies but then it rained that Friday. So we were stuck. 

PS: In the movie, we pretty much see how a school district’s obsession with test scores can suck the life out of a school. Has all the life been sucked out of Venice High School? 

Ruben: No, now it’s just two or three minutes of a teacher explaining why we have to take the tests. Not much of a curriculum change. 

Cobalt: I feel like that will be coming soon. This is only the 2nd year of Smarter Balanced, so I think that as the years go on, curriculum will start to shift to teaching to this test specifically. 

I’d always had the idea of, hey, teachers have a union. Maybe students should have a union. But then with the growing issues at the school, I decided, you know, I think we should actually start one. 

PS: What do your parents think? 

Ruben: They’re behind us 100%. 

PS: There’s no standardized test for student activism. So how do you measure your success? 

Cobalt: The way we distribute [the newspaper], is we go out in the hallways or after school out on the front lawn, and we just hand it to anyone we see. We look around and can see a couple people reading it. That’s what we like to see. 

Ruben: We’re adamant about not distributing during class time. To make sure it’s legitimate and we don’t violate— 

Cobalt: We don’t hand it out during class time because that can be disruptive. 

Ruben: We have a lot of mixed response. The more scholarly students are like, ‘You guys are crazy. Stop doing this nonsense. Take the test and get over it.’ 

Cobalt: ‘You can’t do this. You’re going to hurt the school too much’. I‘ve heard other people saying, ‘Man, I’ve just read this, everything is so right, I’m opting out right now.’ 

PS: What else did learn from the movie? 

Cobalt: In the movie, they said there was some law regarding statistics, that when you take a statistic that measures something and you really focus on it, then the focus shifts to the statistic itself rather than what that’s trying to measure. 

What I think is happening is this country, the education system, the people in charge of it, the government and all that, is focusing on these test scores, but they’re not really focusing on what these test scores are measuring: the quality of our education. 

PS: What do you think would be the best measure of your education? 

Cobalt: Personally, I don’t think that you can measure the true quality of one’s education. I feel like that’s just too complex of a thing. It’s multi-sided. You can’t actually accurately measure it with any sort of testing, or any sort of assessment. It’s something that develops within a person and they take that and go into the real world and put that in action. 

Ruben: I agree with him. We can’t be measured with numbers. We’re more than numbers. We’re human beings. We have different qualities. Some people have qualities in art. Some people love math. Some are more analytical. Some are a bit more closed minded. I feel like numbers, or choosing A, B, C or D really can’t measure what kind of human being you are. What’s your ranking as a human being? 

Note: The school principal did not respond to requests for an interview.


(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.

LATINO PERSPECTIVE--Last Thursday I had the honor of attending the Hispanic Scholarship Fund Leaders in Education Awards (LEA) downtown Los Angeles. This is really an amazing organization. 

Founded in Los Angeles in 1975, the Hispanic Scholarship Fund empowers Latino families with the knowledge and resources to successfully complete a higher education, while providing scholarships and support services to as many exceptional Hispanic American students as possible. HSF strives to make college education a top priority for every Latino family across the nation, mobilizing our community to proactively advance that goal – each individual, over a lifetime, in every way he/she can. 

HSF also seeks to give its Scholars all the tools they need to do well in their course work, graduate, enter a profession, excel, help lead our nation going forward, and mentor the generations to come. As the nation’s largest not-for-profit organization supporting Hispanic American higher education, HSF has awarded over $500 million in scholarships and provides a range of impactful programs for students, HSF Scholars, Alumni, and parents.

Their mission is to empower Latino families with the knowledge and resources to successfully complete a higher education, while providing scholarships and support services to as many exceptional Hispanic American students as possible. 

This year’s Honorees are: 

Parents of the year: Angelica Prieto and Antonio Ramirez they emigrated from Mexico seeking better opportunities in the U.S.  They met in Dallas through family members and settled there to raise their children. They are currently supporting their family by working primarily in hospitality services at four different hotels. 

Community Partner of the Year: “Mexican American Legal Defense Fund”. With a mission “to protect and promote the civil rights of all Latinos living in the United States, MALDEF, which was founded in 1968 in San Antonio Texas, strives to implement programs that bring Latinos into the mainstream of American political and socio-economic life. 

Corporate Partner of the Year: The Southern California Gas Company. SoCalGas is the nation's largest natural gas distribution utility, providing service to 21.6 million consumers in more than 500 communities. Its 20,000 square mile service map encompasses central and southern California, from Visalia to the Mexican border. Headquartered in Los Angeles, it employs more than 8,400 employees. SoCalGas is a regulated subsidiary of Sempra Energy, a Fortune 500 energy services holding company based in San Diego. 

Female Scholar of the Year: Kathleen Guerra, she is studying Mechanical Engineering at MIT. 

Male Scholar of the Year: Bill De La Rosa, he’s studying Sociology & Latin American Studies at Bowdoin College. 

Without the support of HSF these great students would not have been able to attend college, or it would’ve been more difficult for them. 

Wells Fargo, the bank has made an $8.1 million commitment to HSF, over the next 3 years, a significant portion allocated to HSF.net 2.0. On behalf of our scholarship recipients, past, present, and future, we are grateful.  Other partners are: Coca-Cola, The Walt Disney Company, Target, Univision, FedEx, P&G, Time Warner, Walmart and many other corporations. 

How much is a lifetime of open doors worth?  What does it cost to build this country’s next generation of leaders? It costs a lot! Yet, only $8.33 per month from donors like you will help a Hispanic student complete college and prepare to lead our nation.  That’s about as much as it costs to buy one movie ticket a month.   

(Fred Mariscal came to Los Angeles from Mexico City in 1992 to study at the University of Southern California and has been in LA ever since. He is a community leader who serves as Vice Chair of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition and sits on the board of the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council representing Larchmont Village. He was a candidate for Los Angeles City Council in District 4. Fred writes Latino Perspective for CityWatch and can be reached at: [email protected]) –cw


OBLIGATIONS OF PRIVILEGE-This week, the Daily Trojan published its supplement issue, “It Takes a Village: USC and the Community,” in which we explored more carefully the issue of gentrification in the local community, the cost of living near campus and the rise of the University Village. We recognized that, as students at USC, our experiences are shaped not just by members of the University but by the surrounding community as well. However, it would be impossible to address USC’s relations with locals without mentioning crucial members of our community — the homeless population. 

Last year, a report from the Economic Roundtable stated that each month 13,000 Angelenos become homeless, in large part due to the effects of rising housing prices and costs of living. This finding has even prompted Mayor Eric Garcetti to declare a state of emergency in a quest to end the epidemic. 

These concerns should not be separate from the USC’s responsibilities. Given the University’s unique position within the city, it should adopt a greater role in aiding the homeless population. The University should start by contributing financially to local homeless shelters, or by starting one of its own. 

Whether we are aware of it or not, people of the transient community are intertwined with our daily lives. They travel on campus before the gates are drawn at night and off campus to the commercial food establishments students frequent. A short walk from campus, tents — that many consider shelter — line sidewalks along familiar streets. 

The University does provide some support to local community members. One academic enrichment program called the Neighborhood Academic Initiative prepares local students for higher education enrollment. The campus organization ‘Swipes Out Hunger,’ donates leftover students’ dining dollars to the local homeless population at the end of the semester. And in February, the Undergraduate Student Government hosted its first-ever Community Block Party which connected students and local community members. But the University has not created an initiative to specifically address the homelessness crisis which plagues South Central Los Angeles. 

Policy experts have, again and again, pointed to the affordable housing crisis in Los Angeles as a key player in the city’s chronic homelessness. Los Angeles simply doesn’t have enough development, and skyrocketing demands for housing have led to excessive costs of renting or owning homes. As previously reported in the Daily Trojan supplement Wednesday, the ZIP code 90007 which surrounds USC, was the second-most expensive ZIP code for rentals in the entire county. By establishing a homeless shelter, USC would be providing much-needed relief for the thousands of Los Angeles homeless people who find themselves in circumstances in which living is simply impossible. 

Instead of giving the homeless needed support, the University’s actions are contributing to part of the problem. Construction has increased property values, displacing local residents and contributing to rising rents. And for all the rhetoric that the University uses in support of its local community, so many of its actions indicate to community members that they are unwelcome. For one, the gates that surround the University Park Campus are not just ugly urban design — they are exclusionary to our community members. They are a visual symbol that, when 9 p.m. comes around, the University doesn’t want those from the community around. 

It’s time for the University to turn this image around, and prove to the community — including the homeless — that it is also part of our Trojan Family. 

USC wouldn’t be the first top university to establish its own homeless shelter. Called the Y2Y Harvard Square, Harvard University’s student-run homeless shelter offers advocacy, outreach and other service programs to the local homeless population. During the winter months, it serves men and women in the local Cambridge community. If the University supported it financially, a similar operation in South Central Los Angeles could have considerable impact on the local community. 

With a nearly $5 billion endowment and in its role as a premiere research university, USC has unmatched economic and social resources, some of which it owes to the surrounding community. It should use this opportunity to redefine what it means to be a socially responsible institution. 

(Lily Vaughan is a USC freshman majoring in history and political science. Her column, “Playing Politics,” runs on Fridays. This piece is was first posted by the Spring 2016 Editorial Board of the Daily Trojan.)   Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EASTSIDER-There’s a lot to like in the Draft Short Term Rental Ordinance.  Check it out to see the exact text. In a nod to the City of Santa Monica’s Ordinance, the City of LA uses SM’s reference to “Home-Sharing” in categorizing the type of allowable short term rentals. Further, it requires the type of disclosures from the Hosts that we’ve been urging for some time. 

LA City Council has even adopted the Santa Monica idea of regulation through requiring registration and a tax certificate (fancy for hotel tax.) This provides the critical data necessary to track and enforce the Ordinance. 

Recognizing the lawsuit that is still giving City Attorney Feuer an identity crisis, the Draft Ordinance also specifically holds that renters of units cannot participate in Home-Sharing without an express approval by the landlord. That was the underlying issue in the case which proved for once and for all that short term rentals are not legal in residential zones. 

For the poor decimated folks who have been zapped from their rent-controlled apartments or their “affordable housing,” the Ordinance finally makes it clear that RSO units and designated affordable housing are exempted totally from any short term rentals. Pretty much a case of “after the horse left the barn” and “oh gee, what part of the zoning laws didn’t you understand?” But you gotta start somewhere. 

The Ordinance also provides for enforcement and fines for violation. 

Don’t Get Too Giddy 

Understand that Airbnb, HomeAway and their progeny are going to go nuts -- just like they did over the City of Santa Monica’s Ordinance, and for the same reason. 

Using Pareto’s law, around 80% of Airbnb’s profits come from around 20% of the listing entities -- entities that are in the vacation/party house business as a business. Eliminating those players from the mix seriously affects Airbnb’s bottom line – which is serious for this bunch of wannabe billionaire venture capitalist types who desperately need that IPO to monetize their wealth and fortune. Tank the profits, tank the IPO. 

So we can expect a fierce, incredibly well-funded, and uber-coordinated push back as the Draft Ordinance moves forward. 

Which brings me to my next point. If we want this Ordinance to pass, if we want to patch some holes and ambiguities in the Draft (like Santa Monica did in expressly prohibiting Vacation rentals,) then we are going to have to fight for it. 

Many of you will remember the PLUM Committee hearing that was held way back in August of last year. It was a serious food fight that had so many people attending that they had to use the Council Chambers to hold all of us. And of course, Airbnb was there in force. 

Going to the Hearing 

The City Planning Department knows that this Ordinance is contentious. Witness the fact that the Public Hearing is going to be held in the large auditorium next to the new LAPD building -- Deaton Auditorium, 100 W. 1st Street, LA 90012. And they’re even holding in on a Saturday -- May 21 -- starting at 10:00 am so that regular people can attend. Be there. 

Not to be cynical, but the elected officials in the City of Angels respond best to two things: (1) incredible amounts of heat, as in lots and lots of citizens getting up and attending meetings, writing to Councilmembers, telephoning, emailing and such, and (2) Money. Of the two, we can never outspend Airbnb with their billions. 

But what we can do is suit up, show up, and provide the backbone for our politicians to stand up to Airbnb. They need to do the right thing for the actual people who live in Los Angeles. In this regard, I honestly believe that our Councilmembers finally understand that if we let Airbnb destroy the character of our neighborhoods, then we will have destroyed the City of Los Angeles. 

After all, in its immense and sprawling structure, only neighborhoods truly define the City. 

Hope to see you there. 

For Contact Information on the Ordinance and the Hearing:

Matthew Glesne, Housing Planner

City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning

Policy Planning and Historic Resources Division, Citywide Unit

200 N. Spring Street, Room 667, Los Angeles 90021

[email protected] | 213-974-2666


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


CYCLE TRACKS--As Joe Linton reports in Streetsblog LA, downtown’s Los Angeles Street will soon see a protected cycle track replace the plain-paint bike lanes that connect Union Station and First Street. 

This is an undeniable Good Thing. I gladly celebrate any upgrade in bicycle facilities in any parts of the city that see, or that could see if they weren’t so daunting, lots of folks going about their business on bikes. It’s not just “One Less Car” anymore; it’s well-proven that urban bicycling improves productivity at work, boosts public health, and raises small business income. It also re-stitches the civic fabric, as people come to view their city as something more than traffic jams, and their fellow denizens as people, not just shadows behind a windshield in the next lane over. Making safe places to ride in through urban areas means that more people will ride -- and the various, albeit incomplete, bike lane networks in the central city are showing it to be so. Bikes are everywhere, and their riders are just about anyone. 

But LADOT is quoted in Linton’s article as stating that that particular stretch of Los Angeles Street was chosen because it was an easy sell: it’s mostly government offices along the route. In other words, it represents a sort of failure of nerve, and one that degrades DOT’s mission of providing access to all. How? Well, while it’s nice that all the bureaucrats can ride more safely to work and back now, and that LA can test yet another cycle track (there are several in town already), Los Angeles Street has absolutely zero accommodation for bikes where it counts, in the Fashion District. 

I ran a tiny clothing company for several years, and I still dabble in the rag trade. I have made probably hundreds of trips up and down Los Angeles Street, on foot and by bike, and I can tell you, after a decade of observation, that that street and its neighboring roadways absolutely swarm with bikes. Beaters, cruisers, fixies, road bikes, folders, homemade cargo bikes, just about every damn sort of pedal-powered two-wheeler, all duking it out in mixed traffic all day long. Yet the Los Angeles street bike lanes, now as before, stop at First Street. The Fashion District, where bikes are a significant part of the traffic mix, begins around Third and stretches south to at least Twelfth Street. 

Bad … and clueless. Really, we don’t need to “test” cycle tracks: they’ve already been tested, all over the world and in several parts of LA itself. Plenty of data has been published showing that they smooth traffic, boost safety, entice hordes of new riders onto the streets and are good for business. 

We don’t need more “tests.” We need to rationalize our roads, because the present arrangement is killing us, directly and indirectly. Another “pilot project” is little more than a delaying tactic by an agency that’s afraid to do its job.


(Richard Risemberg is a writer. His current professional activities are focused on sustainable development and lifestyle. This column was posted first at Flying Pigeon.)  Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams. 

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW-One of LA’s most dubious distinctions is that the city and county have the highest population of chronically homeless people in the country, almost all of whom live on the streets, according to a November report by the US Housing and Urban Development Department. Since 2013, LA’s chronically homeless population has grown by 55% to 12,536. Over a third of the nation’s chronically homeless live in California.

Back in September, Mayor Eric Garcetti declared a homelessness state of emergency and the city is working on finding innovative solutions to fund affordable housing projects. 

In the meantime, many of the homeless are subjected to seizure of the essentials they need to survive. A US Circuit Court judge ruled last Wednesday that local police have been overreaching in their confiscation of property without due cause. The LA Times reported the injunction prevents the city from seizing property without sufficient notice. The injunction also orders the city to sort and store confiscated items of value. 

The plaintiffs of a lawsuit that led to the injunction are four Skid Row residents, along with the Los Angeles Community Action Network and Los Angeles Catholic Worker, who hoped to include the entire city in the injunction that only covers Skid Row and surroundings, where more than 1,300 tons of personal property were confiscated in 2015.

Judge James Otero said, “The city, in many instances, appears to be confiscating all property, without differentiating the types of property or giving homeless people a meaningful opportunity to separate essential medications or medical equipment from their other property.” 

The city argued that the officers had provided notice before seizing the property and that some of the plaintiffs were exaggerating. Judge Otero responded that “some of the individual defendants appeared to take away property from a person lying on the sidewalk, visibly suffering physical pain.” 

The city has been tweaking an ordinance allowing for the confiscation of items left in public areas. An earlier law was struck down by court order in 2012 when it was found to have violated the Fourth Amendment rights of homeless individuals. Business and homeowners in the area have pressured the city and the police to remove the shopping carts, tents, and encampments of a growing homeless population. 

The most recent changes to the ordinance permit homeless people to keep only the possessions they can fit in a trash bin but the lack of adequate storage space precludes this. Homeless individuals tend not to be stationary so they’re left with no other storage space but the sidewalk. The city has two storage bins where the homeless may store property but space is limited and some items might not fit. Instead of coming up with additional options, the city has pursued property seizure, despite rejections in court. 

City Councilmember Mike Bonin addressed his concern about the cost of future lawsuits a few weeks ago but he voted for the recent changes nevertheless. Civil rights attorney Carol Sobel, who represents the current plaintiffs, has profited from suits against the city, taking in $1.7 million over the past few years. 

As the city continues to address the affordable housing issue, the number of chronically homeless in Los Angeles is unlikely to decrease, especially as rents continue to skyrocket. Instead of fending off lawsuits and trampling over rights, the city should focus on temporary solutions to the storage issues. Any changes should also offer an agreeable solution to business and homeowners, as well.


(Beth Cone Kramer is a successful Los Angeles writer and a columnist for CityWatch.) Photo credit: Al Seib/Los Angeles Times. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.


DEEGAN ON LA-It suddenly looks like Runyon Canyon Park may be morphing from being a regional wilderness park hosting 300,000 dogs and 1.3 million people per year into what may become it’s opposite: an urban recreation and sports center, with amenities that include the installation of a professional-level basketball court, the existing hiking trails, and a feared-to-be modified dog park. 

It may also have a precedent-setting corporate sponsorship and branding agreement, that could be the first of many times the Department of Recreation and Parks, and their partner Friends of Runyon Canyon (FORC), make cash deals for corporate naming rights in the park. Growing pains are already evident. 

The explosion of Runyon Canyon’s popularity is relatively new, according to regulars, and it is drawing attention from many constituencies -- including the Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council and surrounding community, the private non-profit support group Friends of Runyon Canyon, the Rec and Parks special department handling corporate sponsorships in our parks, and beleaguered Councilmember David Ryu (CD4), who both inherited the current problem and then got whipsawed by a plan for a possible conversion of the hillside park from being a peaceful and sylvan retreat, away from the dense urban sprawl surrounding it, into what a forthcoming “Vision Plan” hopes to be able to create at the nature preserve.. 

A statement from Ryu’s office has just been released: 

Per my request, the Department of Recreation and Parks will halt construction of the proposed basketball court at Runyon Canyon Park. The department also agreed with my recommendation to have the Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners reconsider its prior approval of this project.  

This project was initiated before I became the Councilmember of the Fourth District and it is clear that community concern regarding this project needs more robust consideration prior to any further action.  

The park has been open since 1984, although, “nobody used to care. But now with the celebrity thing, people want to have that rub off...it's got buzz as hip and cool, to be able to go home and say I saw a star at Runyon Canyon,” explains Daniel Overberger, an 11-year yoga teacher at Runyon Canyon. 

The proposed basketball court, a sponsored gift by a hip clothing company that wants to brandish its logo on the court, stating that its product line is “unique and ingenious…embodying exclusivity." It wants to reach who they believe are the hip consumers who use the park. 

According to the contractor’s documentation, it is called a “basketball facility” and includes a “regulation-sized tempered glass backboard - same exact piece of glass used all the way up to the NBA level.” The new court will “bring an authentic arena feel to the backyard.” 

So then how do you mix together dogs, hikers, yoga, and a basketball facility that mimics NBA standards and feels like an arena? This is giving people lots to talk about. The future of corporate commercialization of the park is uncertain, although that has been strongly denied by city officials. However, the City Council has not yet pre-empted the building of the court by offering a motion with an ordinance specifically forbidding commercialization and branding in city parks. 

The Canyon’s growing pains will take careful nurturing so that all its users will be assuaged and satisfied. Close-by neighbors as well as outside visitors, who according to FORC comprise eighty percent of the park’s users, should be able to benefit from this natural civic resource. 

David Ryu and his partners -- Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council, Friends of Runyon Canyon Park, the Department of Recreation and Parks, and clothier Pink Dolphin -- have their work cut out for them, responding to feelings that range from anger and near-depression to exhilaration. 

Nobody has yet provided a big picture solution to the future sustainability of this 136-acre pristine wilderness park that includes 90 acres dedicated to off-leash dogs, smack in the middle of Hollywood. It’s in one of the most densely populated areas of our city, containing dozens of high density land use projects on the drawing boards. Unless the rhetoric cools down and collegiality heats up, arriving at a consensus about what the park should be is going to be tough. A homogenized view will be the only way all parties can emerge feeling whole. Give and take will be needed to reach a happy medium and move on. 

Leadership is required and the responsibility is David Ryu’s, the only elected official who is directly part of this controversy. He is the highest ranking public steward of Runyon Canyon Park. As one regular at the park said, "David Ryu can be the hero or the villain. If he does what the people want, he can be the hero of CD4. If he doesn't, his career is finished." 

Ryu can facilitate a conversation concerning the public and private partnership concept to help explain its needs and the benefits. He has had “town hall” meetings with the community about the Hollywood sign, the Griffith Park circulation plan to improve parking and utilize shuttles, and how Metro can manage traffic for the Miracle Mile as construction of the Purple Line Extension gets under way. 

To gain a stronger buy-in from community members, the public needs to understand how envisioned private-public partnerships can offer funding for improvements for city parks. Guidelines need to be set for what donors can expect, short of branding and commercialization. Underwriters should be philanthropists, not merchants. 

Ryu knows how to organize and lead community groups to reach consensus. Partnering with Recreation and Parks leaders, there should be an effort to provide education about the private-public partnership program. Creating what charities rely on as “best practices” could be very helpful. 

There are potentially millions of human visitors and dogs coming to Runyon Canyon in the next several years and the park and the community must be ready for them. As our city continues to densify, parks will grow increasingly important as a refuge from the urban confinement that surrounds most of us. 

To complicate things, a lawsuit has been filed by Citizens Preserving Runyon, against the Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners; respondents were named as being Friends of Runyon Canyon (FORC) and contractor B&W Holdings, LLC, dba, Digital Interiors, the company awarded the job to construct the basketball court as well as other jobs. 

According documents filed with the Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court on April 18, the lawsuit asks: 

(1) That the Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the City and its departments, including Recreation and Parks, to set aside their approval of the Project and to require preparation of a legally adequate environmental review, as well as adequate notice and a hearing, before any re-approval of the Project; 

(2) For a temporary restraining order, and preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining further construction and completion of the Project until this action can be decided on the merits; 

(3) For costs of suit and attorneys' fees according to law; 

(4) For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate. 

Litigation is either settled or it drags on. If an EIR is ordered, the process could go on for many months. This will give plenty of time for considerations about “the deal” at the center of the controversy -- how it came about and what legitimacy it has in light of the public outcry against political leaders and park officials. The lawsuit alleges a failure by the City to give the public “due process” consideration – many saying that they did not want the basketball court but were not given a chance to weigh in. 

The donation of $260,000 by clothier Pink Dolphin includes $122,534 for repair of a retaining wall, according to MOU documents obtained from the City, showing the bid from contractor Digital Interiors. Unknown, but possibly discoverable in the lawsuit, is how many contractors actually bid for the job and where Digital Interiors’ bid fits into the range of bids received. The document shows that the contractor is contributing a drinking fountain, valued at $9,800 as a “discount” to the overall bill. 

Important to note is that there is that no free-and-clear cash benefit will accrue to the city from this donor transaction. The total amount of $260,000 is allocated to costs. Increasing the value of this or any gift might be a better philanthropic gesture, allowing the city to reinvest additional funds into other park needs. This could also help offset the perpetual benefit the donor gets from a permanent branding of the basketball court, displaying its corporate logo in the park. Despite the fact that their maintenance endowment will only run ten years, their logo will remain as a permanent commercial. 

An added benefit for the donor would be a larger tax-deduction for charitable giving. The value of what is being branded by a corporation -- a sports facility in a very popular city park -- may have been very seriously underestimated. 

Perhaps LA Recreation and Parks Department’s Partnership and Revenue Branch could use instance as a precedent in the future: paying costs and gaining a surplus for other park needs should be part of all sponsorship negotiations. 

How hard of a deal did the Rec and Parks department and FORC try to make behind closed doors, or did they settle for the first quarter-million dollars that walked in the door? It seems that, from reading the contractor’s documentation, the contractor may have said, “This is what it will cost you,” and the city said to the donor, “This is what we need to pay the contractor.” If so, that’s a “passing the tin cup” style of fundraising, just to get by, instead of setting a higher threshold and saying “we’re worth it.” 

A trained and experienced development officer from a major philanthropic institution (and our city is full of them) could lead the sponsorship negotiations for the city. Setting the bar higher is something to consider for either permanent staff or for consultants providing training on how to raise money for charities. It may be unfair to expect program managers and analysts in the city’s bureaucracy to understand the complications of successful fundraising. More growing pains. 

It should be a civic pleasure to support our great city. Feeling of a little bit of financial pain comes along with the benefit of a sponsor’s branding, promotion and tax write-off. Donors need to understand that they are playing in the Big Leagues in LA. We cannot be beggars. Ask the Mayor if the City is worth it. 

Some question FORC’s role as advocates for the park. “An advocacy organization that encourages heavy construction without an Environmental Impact Report is not fit to protect a Nature Area. An advocacy organization whose violations trigger costly lawsuits from aggrieved constituents has no mandate or moral authority to represent Runyon Canyon. FORC's persistent sneakiness, mendacity and arrogance have destroyed the public's trust,” offers Michael Konik, a 23-year resident of Vista Street and a longtime volunteer trash cleaner at Runyon Canyon. 

When he took office nine months ago, David Ryu withheld $600,000 in disbursements to the community earmarked by his predecessor. Ryu will also receive an additional $1 million in discretionary funds for this year, so he could be sitting on up to $1.6 million dollars to use at his discretion. He has formed a Discretionary Funds Task Force to advise him how to support community projects with this bankroll. 

Some of that CD4 money, an estimated $122,534, could be budgeted for fixing the retaining wall, considered to be a public safety hazard. This would shift the financial burden from the corporate donor to the well-funded city council office that stewards the park. And it would remove one of the arguments for making the deal with this donor in the first place. 

Realistically, if Pink Dolphin needed a new home for its quarter-million-dollar gift there are many charities that would probably jump at the chance to benefit from its philanthropy. Anyway, the company could “bail,” believing that the negative public relations backlash is not worth the “branding” opportunity. They also may not have known how many issues were sidestepped in the rush to accept their money -- and what could be involved with an EIR, if it gets to that stage. 

Hollywood legend Francis Ford Coppola has said, “A contract is only a starting point.” It’s not unreasonable to argue that either Pink Dolphin or the city might reconsider what could be seen as a less than favorable deal, especially as the process for arriving at that deal is examined in the lawsuit. There’s also the possibility that the city will lose the lawsuit and the donor deal will die. 

Severing the basketball court donation right now might be a preferable option, especially if the retaining wall can be paid for by David Ryu. As long as the branding and basketball court continue to be the main conversation point, it distracts attention from the very serious business of creating a sustainability plan for the park. 

If FORC is as good as it looks, money should not be a problem, especially when combined with David Ryu’s approximately $1.6 million in discretionary funds (subject to any allocations already committed by him.) None could be found on his discretionary funds website A request for Ford Theater Trails, appearing in the April 2016 minutes, appears to be in abeyance. 

A source that requested anonymity claims that, in addition to the Pink Dolphin donation, FORC collected other donations in 2015 totaling $94,000 ($51,000 in checks, $40,000 through Pay Pal, and some stock donations.) They should have no trouble attracting other sponsors as plans for more park improvements unfold. When they incorporated, FORC’s goal was to encourage not one major donor but many donors to assure the ongoing financial support for Runyon Canyon Park. 

The Friends of Runyon Canyon Park have alluded to a “Vision Plan” that will help shape the future improvement and sustainability of the park. This is a critical working document that may be presented soon. When that happens, the whole community will be able to deal holistically with the future of the park, and not just in the wake of the current controversy. 

They (FORC) have a chance to work closely with Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council, using Councilmember David Ryu as a facilitator -- a role that suits him. Hopefully, that will help as more growing pains emerge.


(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.


JUST THE FACTS-Those who say they support the men and women of the LAPD really don’t show it in their actions, deeds or public comments. Recently I attended the “Twice a Citizen” dinner celebration for our Los Angeles Police Department Reserve Officers. Hundreds of LAPD Reserve officers and guests attended this annual banquet in Hollywood. Reserve officers included doctors, airline pilots, attorneys, actors and many from other professions. 

Chief Charlie Beck attended the dinner, along with a number of Assistant Chiefs, Commanders, Captains and other members of the Department. What was notably missing were all the members of the Police Commission as well as elected officials. It seems that not one elected official in the City of LA could find the time to show support for our LAPD Reserve officers. Their vocal “support” of the dedicated men and women of the LAPD Reserve Corps end up being truly empty words. 

Police Commission President Matt Johnson and his fellow commissioners are the appointed heads of the LAPD. They review Department policies and practices; and they carry out a variety of other responsibilities that impact the men and women of the LAPD. In addition, they dictate policy directions to Chief Beck -- directions that become orders and modifications affecting the way the LAPD delivers service to the people of Los Angeles. It’s interesting to read stories that detail the following recent crimes and then wonder why the Police Commission, particularly Mr. Johnson, seems totally out of touch with illegal activities taking place throughout the City: 

*Women found stabbed to death in South Los Angeles apartment. 

*Beloved worker found bound and fatally shot inside Laundromat in South Los Angeles. 

*LAPD and Sheriff’s Department Command Staff criticized for handling of wild LA police pursuit. 

*4 shot in South L.A. while setting up for BBQ. 

*Man with gunshot wounds dies in liquor store. 

*Family ID’s body of woman found off freeway. 

*Police seek clues after driver shot in Van Nuys. 

*Horse beaten and shot to death and left on Sylmar street. 

*2 women sentenced in shooting death of young father outside church. 

*Man found shot to death inside alley in South LA. 

*Man shot, wounded during carjacking in South LA. 

*3 wounded in Pacoima shooting. 

*Mayhem in East Hollywood as robbery suspects crash into 4 cars; 3 in custody. 

*20 year old beaten and stabbed to death near Sylmar High. 

*Three teen boys shot in Pico-Union area. 

*Three people shot, wounded in South LA. 

*Hunt for assailants who attacked four in separate South LA shootings. 

*Vigil held for Los Angeles murder victim as search for killer continues. 

As you can see, very serious crimes are happening throughout Los Angeles, committed by very violent people. One would think that Mr. Johnson and his fellow commissioners would be concerned about victims and their family members who’ve been impacted by the ever-increasing crime numbers. 

Operating with less than the budgeted 10,000 officers, the LAPD must police the sprawling City of Angels, a task made more frustrating when the Department sees that the Commission members and especially its president, Mr. Johnson, push forward their policy on officer-involved shootings. They seem more concerned with protecting criminals than our officers. 

Mr. Johnson and his anti-police attitude will only force members of the LAPD to think twice before engaging in a situation causing him or her to draw a weapon. It’s a sad state of affairs when those who are sworn to protect and serve are not adequately supported by those who set policy for them. As I have mentioned before, it may be time to arm yourself to protect yourself and your family.            

Perhaps someday we will have elected officials and police commissioners willing to let those who commit crimes know that it is wise to cooperate with the directions of the officers who are sworn to “Protect and Serve.”


(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. He writes Just the Facts for CityWatch. You can contact him at [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-We all mistakes, mostly honest ones, because we are in a hurry, lack information or just figure out problems poorly. But prominent public officials cannot be let off the hook so easily. After all, they have their immediate staff available to investigate a full range of public policy questions, as well as the backup to fact-check claims and investigate all alternatives. Furthermore, in addition to resources down the hall, they have access to experts in the departments and agencies that report to them, as well even more experts in academic institutions and think tanks who are only a phone call or an email away. 

Thus, when public officials make mistakes, in this case Mayor Eric Garcetti with his repeated claims about LA's housing crisis, I can only conclude that it is a "dishonest" mistake. Through press releases, statements, and his recent State of the City address, Hizzonor has remarked again and again that by gradually updating Los Angeles' community plans, he can solve LA's housing crisis that includes sky-rocketing rents, a growing lack of affordable housing and an increasing homeless population. His prescription, as follows, is straight forward enough, even if most of it is not spelled out in detail: 

  1. Despite the Hollywood Plan’s demise in Superior Court due to its inflated population forecasts, subsequent updated community plans will be used to massively up-zone large swaths of each community plan. 
  1. Real estate investors will then charge in and build large amounts of housing in each newly deregulated neighborhood. 
  1. Some of this new housing will be affordable. 
  1. Most of the new housing will be high end, but this over-supply will suppress housing costs for all other types housing. 
  1. The new luxury housing will eventually deteriorate and also become affordable housing. 

Why do I call these frequently made claims “dishonest mistakes?” 

First, the City of Los Angeles does not have current and accurate information about its own population. There are no realistic population forecasts, especially for local neighborhoods. It relies on data from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and these data are incredibly inaccurate. 

For example, in 1996 and again in 2001, based on SCAG data, the General Plan Framework predicted that the 2010 population of LA would be 4.3 million. In fact, the population was about 3.8 million, or 500,000 people fewer. When similar inflated numbers were misused to turn the update of the Hollywood Community Plan into a tool to up-zone and up-plan much of Hollywood, the Superior Court threw the proposed plans and zoning ordinances out on their ears. 

Second, the City of LA does not have current and accurate information about the housing potential of existing zoning. Earlier assessments indicate that current zoning could support a population of between five and eight million people. Without this information, as well as population forecasts, there is no way to determine if any particular neighborhood needs its local real estate up-zoned to meet future population growth. 

Third, the City of LA does not have current and accurate information about the capacity of local public services and infrastructure to meet the needs of existing residents, much less greater numbers of future residents in a particular neighborhood. Nevertheless, the General Plan Framework is crystal clear that up-zoning and up-planning can only proceed where there are sufficient public services and infrastructure. 

Fourth, the Mayor's approach to housing that advocates demolishing what exists and replacing it with new market housing will wipe out far more affordable housing than it will construct. In fact, this is already happening, with about one unit of new affordable housing replacing four demolished older units. In other cases, such as single-family homes, McMansions cost about three times the price of the less expensive homes they demolish to create a building site. 

Fifth, there are no data supporting the Mayor's claim that an unregulated housing market will produce affordable housing. Investors target the most lucrative housing alternatives available, which is luxury housing. Investors will not plunk down money for housing projects that are either money losers or just scraping by. 

Sixth, there are also no data supporting the claim that in Los Angeles, over time, pricey housing declines in price and becomes affordable -- what the Mayor's courtiers call “filtering.” On the ground, the opposite is the case, with all types of residential real estate increasing in price over time, even when controlled for inflation. 

Seventh, the Mayor's approach ignores the real causes of LA's housing crisis, which is just a local expression of a national trend, and in some cases, an international trend. These causes include the elimination of government programs to fund, and in some cases, to build and operate public housing.

In addition, increasing levels of wealth and income inequality leave most of the US population with less purchasing power in constant dollars to spend on housing. 

Finally, this trend also includes large amounts of foreign investment in US real estate, especially residential projects in large US cities like Los Angeles. When Russian, Chinese, Brazilian, and Saudi oligarchs and princes park their money in the US, it goes into luxury projects, not into affordable housing. This investment not only reduces the amount of affordable housing, but tends to pull up the price of all levels of housing. 

With such compelling information readily available, why then do Mayor Garcetti and his kindred spirits make so many dishonest mistakes when it comes to planning reforms, zoning, and housing issues in Los Angeles -- even when these ideas have been rejected by judges in successful law suits against the City? 

While only the fly on the wall knows for sure, my guess is that the Mayor and his circle of contributors, advisors, lobbyists, publicists, and on-call experts are so linked to private real estate investors, that they will not let facts, experiences, or contrary viewpoints cloud their vision of a Los Angeles where real estate speculators have free rein.


(Dick Platkin is a former LA City planner who reports on local planning issues for CityWatch. He welcomes comments and corrections at [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

MY TURN-If you are bored to tears with the political candidates platforms of "breaking up the banks, building a wall, following the constitution as it was written, deporting 11 million illegal immigrants" and so on, I have a brand new topic for the next Presidential debate. It’s a subject that none of them have discussed … and it’s as old as civilization itself: legalizing prostitution. 

I’m sure that none of you were expecting that to be a political issue, yet California State Attorney General and Senator wannabe Kamala Harris received a gift from State Judge Jeffrey White who ruled against a suit brought by a San Francisco-based advocacy group, Erotic Service Provider Legal, Education and Research Project, against Attorney General Harris and the district attorneys of four counties in March 2015. 

According to a post in CalWatchdog.com, the suit claimed that prosecuting sex that is “part of a voluntary commercial exchange between adults” violates the state and U.S. Constitutions. 

Harris must have breathed a sigh of relief since her argument was almost the same as the Judge’s. 

"There is no fundamental right to engage in prostitution or to solicit prostitution,” wrote Harris in her motion to dismiss the case. “Neither is prostitution or solicitation expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.” But shortly after Harris filed, the Supreme Court ruled, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that same-sex marriages were constitutionally protected — a decision that plaintiffs sought to use to their advantage against Harris. 

I found one interesting part in the Plaintiff's submission: Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit to challenge California’s intrusion upon their fundamental liberty interest in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudential theme of shielding private, sexual relationships from governmental oversight,” they wrote, claiming that the ruling’s treatment of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, allows individuals to engage in intimate conduct without unwarranted governmental intrusion.” 

According to the Associated Press, prostitution has been illegal in California since 1872, with a 1961 update increasing the state’s $500 fine to $1,000 — while leaving in place the original punishment of six month’s time in jail. Rounding out his decision, White also rejected plaintiffs’ claims that their rights to free expression and to earning a living did not extend to using illegal activity to do so. 

So here it is... the great moral dilemma. One of our political parties advocates keeping the government out of the Doctor /Patient relationship (unless it comes to women’s health) but they have this obsessive interest in our sex lives. 

I would pay to watch a debate with the five Presidential candidates discussing the pros and cons of legalizing prostitution in the U.S. 

Taking a much needed break from the Neighborhood Council election morass and the National Election Circus, I decided to see what countries have legalized prostitution. At the same time I wanted to see if the sky has fallen; if the population has turned into pillars of salt; if AIDS fatalities have risen; and what other mayhem might have occurred. 

Here is what I found: 109 countries have deemed it illegal. Along with the United States, (with the exception of Nevada (where it is legal but restricted) and Rhode Island (that passed a law in 2009 making it a crime,) such “progressive societies” as Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, Russia, China, Viet Nam and Saudi Arabia are all examples of countries that have declared prostitution illegal. 

The seventy-seven countries practicing such debauchery include: Canada, Cuba, European Union, Israel and Switzerland. Five countries have no laws for or against it; and eleven countries have restricted laws that include regulating locations imposing strict health requirements, minimum ages, the prohibition of brothels, and outlawing sex slavery and "pimping." 

If we look at it from an economic point of view, according to the book, “Prostitution: Prices and Statistics of the Global Sex Trade” (available from Amazon for $2.99,) it is estimated that prostitution's annual revenue is $168 billion. 

Annual dollar sales in the world’s top ten prostitution markets are: 

China: $73 billion

Spain: $26.5 billion

Japan: $24 billion

Germany: $18 Billion (Legal Industry)

United States: $14.6 billion

South Korea: $12 billion

India: $8.4 billion

Thailand: $6.4 billion

Philippines: $6 billion

Turkey: $4 billion 

In many countries where it is legal, taxes are paid for "services rendered." The website ProCon.org presents both sides of different issues using experts in the various fields. In the case of prostitution, both sides make strong arguments.     

Looking at “moral dilemmas,” we know that moral standards in American society have changed over the past twenty years. Whereas racial inter-marriage was once illegal, it is now an accepted and common sight. Legalizing Marijuana will probably appear on the November ballot. Marriage to members of the same sex is the law of the land. Who knows what other moral issues will disappear? 

Personally speaking, we have such important challenges that need to be met...locally, nationally and internationally. I would think government intervention into our sex lives should be way down on the list of priorities. And it would not be a reason to either vote for or against Kamala Harris in the Senate race. 

As always....comments welcome.


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

EDUCATION POLITICS-Whether it's Donald Trump or those misguided souls continuing to set the course for public education "reform" at places like the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), what they have in common is the complete inability to deal with objective, quantifiable reality in explaining how they intend to achieve their goals -- or whether these should be their goals in the first place. 

My favorite unchallenged feel good lie about public education -- with literally no basis in fact although it remains an unattainable goal at LAUSD and elsewhere -- is that, "All students will be going to college." This flies in the face of reality: the total capacity of all U.S. colleges and universities amounts to only 30% of all high school graduates. College and universities could not accommodate LAUSD's specious goal, even if its graduating students had a mastery of all K-12 prior grade level standards -- which they do not. 

The fact that 75% of those arriving at junior colleges in California cannot even pass the prerequisite junior college entrance exam -- and are therefore forced into taking remedial rather than college level courses -- somehow fails to prompt anyone to question how they “got” these passing grades in high school, how they passed the high school exit exam, and how they received a diploma attesting to supposed K-12 mastery. 

We have arrived at a point of political correctness in which even a mention of easily quantifiable Latino and African American (premeditated) underachievement can get you labeled a racist. We are supposed to go along with the delusional belief that what remains an over 90% de facto segregated public education system (sixty-two years after Brown vs. Board of Education ruled that such a system is inherently unequal) can somehow change at LAUSD. The only thing that’s been unequivocally and predictably achieved is learned underachievement and inferiority among Latino and African American students. 

There's a saying that people who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. There was a time, starting at the end of the 19th century and going up through the 1960s, when public education was seen as the great social equalizer against inequality and poverty. A big part of public education’s achievement was the enforcing of academic excellence. This was done without today's completely self-delusional social promotion that destroys academic excellence. Our current policy has led to the failure of public education. And without white participation in the system, there seems to be no accountability. 

A big part of the once well-rounded public education system was a vibrant industrial arts and vocational program that provided professional training for the 70% of students who were not going to college or for those who had no way to support secondary education without a skilled profession that enabled them to pay for it. 

Automotive, wood, metal, electrical, print, and many other types of “shop” fulfilled this function. These courses created a real life context in which some students who might be struggling with English or math comprehension in a traditional classroom could find out just how smart they really were when they could master skills in shop and other vocational classes that offered practical application. 

But the magnificent potential of shop classes that taught valuable trades and skills was sabotaged in the 1970s and beyond. These industrial arts classes became an over-enrolled dumping ground for predominantly minority students who were disrupting other classes, stopping other students from learning. Rather than see that there was an understandable racial imbalance in these classes, the simplistic LAUSD administration choose to close all the shop classes, pushing the lie that all students were “going to college.” 

What these administrators understood – similar to the manner used by Donald Trump to sell his vacuous program -- is that human nature is such that Johnny's minority parents would rather be told that 9th-grade Johnny is going to be a doctor or a lawyer -- even if he doesn’t know his times tables -- than to be told the uncomfortable truth. 

So now we are faced with a reality where 60% of the mostly uneducated 2.4 million people behind bars in this country are African American or Latino, which, unless you are a racist, can only be attributed to a complete and utter failure to provide them with the educational skills needed to be gainfully and legally employed contributors to our society. 

At a cost of $78,000 a year to deal with school dropouts in the juvenile justice system and then comparable costs once they graduate into our now privatized for-profit prison system, shouldn’t we try to bring back what once was a vibrant industrial arts and vocational education program in our middle and high schools? 

When the Bernie Sanders campaign talks about a new ‘New Deal’ to rebuild America's infrastructure, does it occur to anyone that the welding, electrical, plumbing, woodworking, masonry, and other trades no longer have the skilled workforce that will be needed? To become a state certified welder -- a profession in which there is a critical shortage -- it takes about six months of training to be able to pass the state exam and begin work at a $40,000 a year trade. 

All around Los Angeles there are richly constructed buildings and monuments to our heritage that are now in advanced decay. How is it that older countries like France have learned to maintain their heritage, realizing that doing so is fundamental to their society's continued advancement and well-being. 

Something as mundane as LADWP’s $1000 subsidy for more efficient pool motor replacement program or a serious conversion to residential solar panels that would supply most of our carbon-free electrical needs, would go a long way toward finding gainful employment for young people who are unnecessarily swept up in the criminal injustice system. 

What stands in the way of this no-brainer winning program that could help develop the skilled workforce we need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure are vested corporate interests and the school administrators they hand pick to maintain a failing system of public education. At the base of such a system that is built on corporate greed is the truly racist not-so-secret belief that Latino and African American students can't learn. It's a simple choice: people or profits.


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

SOUTH OF THE 10--I would like to introduce a new column called “South of the 10” by the editor of community blog 2urbangirls.com, Melissa Hébert. (Photo above.)

The column will explore issues, from an alternative lens, from a citizen point of view.

“South of the 10” is a column where facts and opinions mingle.

As a resident of the 2nd Supervisorial District, for the last four decades, I have listened to elders speak of the glory of the “good ole days” and watching my community fall into disarray, with the highest areas of poverty in Los Angeles County.

According to 2010 U.S. Census Data, Los Angeles County is home to roughly four million people. The Public Policy Institute of California and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, found that 2.6 million, or 27%, of Los Angeles County residents lived in poverty in 2011. The official poverty rate for the county, based on the U.S. Census' 2011 American Community Survey, is 18%.

Although my community continues to be represented by an electorate that reflects the diversity of the residents, we have a long way to go in the area of educating our residents in order to end the cycle of poverty permeating our community.

‘South of the 10’ looks forward to not only identifying issues, but also looking at creative, out of the box thinking to address these issues.

Having built relationships with seasoned journalists, “South of the 10” looks forward to bringing historical context to the discussion and drawing correlations to today’s issues.

  • Melissa’s next column will appear in Thursday, April 28.

(Melissa Hébert is an alumni of California State University Dominguez Hills with a degree in Political Science. She is the editor-in-chief of blog 2urbangirls.com and host of the Urban Girl Show. Melissa is a volunteer server on School Site Council in Inglewood Unified School District and is the mother of two handsome sons. She can be reached at [email protected]


POLITICS--It's amazing how cute the headlines can be, both in how they're being written and presented, and in how we're supposed to read and take them at face value.  Ever get the idea that we're all being tooled?  No worries...you're not alone...and I am happy to help with translating the double-speak for you. 

1) From the Public Policy Institute of California:

The California Economy: Underemployed and Discouraged Workers  

Translation--With all due respect to the Millennials, who've never known a robust economy, and who don't realize how life is so wonderful with a full-time job and benefits, and who've never known anything but part-time jobs, most of us are underemployed.   

Those of us older folks who remember the Reagan and Clinton eras, back when both conservatives and liberals alike showed much more kindness and respect towards their fellow Americans, and when bipartisanship was a reality and not just a buzzword, respect the need for an adult and his/her family to have a respectable, affordable lifestyle based on pay, benefits and retirement. 

California's rich and powerful elites are doing fine, so why aren't you.  You've got part-time work, you're out of the unemployment figures, so rather than work like hell for an economy with "real" jobs, just lower the bar and tell everyone you're fine...and diminish those declaring we've got a service economy from hades to be haters, bigots, and whiners. 

2) From Fortune Magazine:

UnitedHealth Hasn't Given Up on Obamacare Altogether 

Translation--All the King's Horses, and All the King's Men, won't stop Obamacare from being financially sustainable unless we're all willing to pay 2-3 times more for our health care while getting 2-3 times less. 

But hey, why try to fix the problem, and replace a financial whirlpool into chaos, when it's easier to just demean and defame those who are simply pointing out the Emperor Has No Clothes.   

United and all the other creepy, self-serving health plans who (in large part) got us into this mess, and who wrote this politically-and-not-economically driven "Affordable Care Act" are now bailing out because (gasp!) they're losing money no matter how much more we're all being asked to pay into the system, and because (gasp!) the competitive/capitalist approach to health plans fighting to reduce costs and improve care isn't part of the ACA. 

And the plans that United will stay with?  Those similar to the ones that those who have health care through their employer now have.  But improve FULL-TIME employment with benefits to really fix the problem?   

Well...did you read the first translation above about underemployment?  Easier just to blame the evil conservatives and Republicans instead of focusing on reality, right? 

3) From The Sacramento Bee:

Medi-Cal set to expand coverage to undocumented children

Translation—No ... our taxpayer dollars would, never, never, NEVER pay for those not here illegally!  No, those who employ workers illegally, or the legal residents/relatives paying for and sponsoring their families, couldn't possibly be asked to clean up their mess. 

After all, we were promised by our government leaders this would neeeeeeeeeeever happen, right? 

How much nicer to have the rest of us pay for their mess, and decry those who want more Medi-Cal funds to go to cancer and autoimmune disease and disabled native-born and legal immigrants as bigots, monsters, and Nazis.  After all, why should an African-American child born in South LA have a higher priority for our tax dollars than an "undocumented" child whose parents and parents' employers knowing broke the law? 

4) From NBC News Online:

Most Americans Live in Areas With Unhealthy Levels of Air Pollution, Study Finds 

Translation--The LA/Long Beach area tops the list of unhealthy regions in our nation, which means that those who have been encouraging waves and waves of development and population influx, without ignoring the science of having too many people in too small a condensed region, are anything but environmentally smart or even friendly. 

But isn't it so much easier to blame those asking how we can allow so much population influx and development without enough water and space?  After all, asking to have enough infrastructure to sustainably accommodate hordes of new residents is the same as opposing affordable housing and racial justice, right? 

Because there's nothing so politically successful when trying to ram a bag of flaming razor-blades down the throats of those playing by the rules, and demanding we all play by the rules, than to demean and defame those trying to point out the obvious. 

Final Translation: Yes, we're being led by liars and cheaters and scoundrels. 

But if you don't like it, then leave.  After all, look what a great job we did in kicking out the generations who built this state to what it is now.  Yes, their money and resources and jobs are in Texas and all sorts of other states, but at least we don't have to hear them all complain anymore, so the problems they decried aren't really true, after all. 

And if you try to take action to fix the lawbreaking, science-defying, truth-smashing efforts we're shoving down your throats?  Well, look out...because next we're coming for YOU.


(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.) 


HOMELESSNESS: A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE--I lost my brother Steve last week. He died of cardiac arrest at 63. Steve was the black sheep of our family of six children. He did not go to college and struggled to make a living building decks and remodeling bathrooms and kitchens. If my parents had not let him live in a converted garage behind their house in Santa Monica, he would very likely have ended up like many of the folks we see living on the street in Venice – and he certainly would have died much sooner than he did. 

From an early age Steve abused drugs, alcohol and food. Although he was from a family of walkers and runners, exercise was not in Steve’s vocabulary. Alcohol and food exacerbated his late on-set diabetes, required three-times-a-week dialysis for the last 11 years and led to the loss of his eyesight in his early fifties. 

He had been living in an assisted living facility in Culver City when he paused to sit down in the lobby, passed out and never woke up. 

His life was not without laughter, love, pleasure or accomplishment, though these were rarer after the dialysis started and his sight was gone. 

For many years I have looked at the homeless population in Venice as though I was looking at countless Steves struggling with substance abuse, limited skills, and self-defeating behaviors. The human tendency to get stuck, to become habituated, both to addiction and to a status quo, is the dominant thread I saw in Steve and also in those living on the Boardwalk and Third Street and behind Ralphs. 

To those who question my sympathy for the homeless, this column is an acknowledgement that my experience with Steve hardened me. Living close to an addict for most of my life made me acutely aware of how easily our “help” is counter-productive and simply enables self-defeating behavior to continue. It also made me see how obstinate a human being can be in pursuing their own destruction. My parents’ enabling of Steve kept him from the street but also kept him from successfully confronting his addictions and a fuller life. A stint in AA was promising but did not last. We all stood by, feeling helpless as he descended into renal failure, blindness and loss of mobility. 

For me, the corollaries abound in Venice. Public feeding programs at Venice churches and along the Boardwalk invite more homeless here while offering just enough to keep them ensconced on the street. Handing out blankets only makes the campers a little warmer while still living in a dangerous, exposed setting. Providing showers, toilets and a place to use a computer without engagement with a case worker and a path to a bed encourages the camping to continue. Allowing tons of personal possessions to take over portions of Venice Beach and local sidewalks assures the campers stay nearby. Mandating a right to live on a sidewalk further habituates the homeless to being homeless while creating noxious conditions for nearby residents (just as Steve became more obnoxious to those around him as his disease progressed.) 

The decades-long failure of Los Angeles City and County to devote the funds, services and housing to the un-housed population compounded the nightmare exponentially. Now, Councilman Bonin has presented his plan to help all those who have not been as fortunate as my brother to have a roof over their head. As with the City’s overall plan, it is a grand vision – but also without much funding. Mike’s leftist tradition shines through on each page; he proposes initiatives that salve the liberal conscience but that in some instances will not solve the problems we face. 

With two fundamental facts staring Mike in the face, he blinked and defaulted to ideology. The first fact is that if City authorities make it easier and easier to live on the street it will be much harder to get people off the street. Mike exaggerates what the courts have ruled and opposes enforcement options that are still legal, such as returning to enforcement of the City’s “no lying, sitting, sleeping” on a sidewalk ordinance. The second fact is that the longer people are on the street the more habituated they become to it. As the City Council removes almost all vagrancy laws little leverage remains to nudge people into case management, rehab programs, shelters or shared housing. Despite all the lofty goals, the lack of funding and of enforcement in Mike’s plan will condemn most of the more than 1,000 souls now on Venice streets to remaining there. 

The most poorly thought out proposal is to turn the Westminster Senior Center into a storage facility for homeless possessions. This location has previously been used as a campground by transients and some of them have relentlessly preyed upon the nearby residents. The LAPD has only in the last year kept the park relatively clear and addressed the crime in the area. Drawing transients to this site on a daily basis will certainly result in renewed camping around the center and in nearby alleys and more opportunistic crime directed at the residents. 

It makes far more sense to rent warehouse/office space in the industrial strip along Del Rey Avenue between Washington Boulevard and Maxella for use as an intake center for the County’s Coordinated Entry System (CES), with storage – both voluntary and involuntary – as an ancillary element. This location is removed from residences, would draw transients away from the impacted areas on Venice Beach, and offers a site for case workers to enroll homeless into the CES, which tracks and coordinates all governmental contacts with homeless individuals. It also allows social workers to develop and carry-out tailored placements into services, secure benefits and housing. Storage without engagement just leaves folks on the street. 

Similarly, Mike’s proposal to re-purpose the Venice median parking lot between Pacific and Dell as subsidized housing for the homeless misses the stated target in several ways. 

While Venice is indeed losing affordable housing due to rising rents, the proposed subsidized housing on the median lot will be for those at the very bottom of the economic ladder, not the college students, cashiers, teachers, nurses, security guards, artists, etc., who cannot afford an apartment in Venice. Adding more subsidized housing for the homeless will not address the loss of this type of work force housing in the least. 

When asked if Mike had identified any other city parking lots or land in CD 11 for similar homeless housing, Mike’s chief deputy Chad Molnar said Mike “started in Venice because the homeless population is greatest there and (Venice) is losing more affordable housing at a faster clip there.” But Venice already has twice as much subsidized housing per capita as any other community in Council District 11.* It is long overdue for other communities in CD 11 to step up and offer their parking lots for homeless housing to match Venice’s track record. 

Venice has a large transient population not because of higher rents in recent years; I bet Bonin’s staff could not find more than ten people living on Venice Beach who were forced out of apartments in Venice by rent increases, which are limited by rent control to three percent per year. Venice has this large population due to the beach, sun, drugs, fast food outlets, and most importantly, lack of enforcement and failure to stop the storage of tons of personal possessions along the Boardwalk, which is not allowed, for example, in the park next to City Hall. 

The amount of housing required to house Los Angeles’ homeless population is staggering to contemplate and even more bewildering when one considers the time it will take to fund, design, acquire sites and construct it. Whatever units could be built on the Venice median site would be a drop in the bucket compared to the vast number of units that are required. They also would not be available for many years, while the encampments in Venice fester and continue to ruin the quality of life of nearby residents and business owners. 

It makes far more sense to take the funds available for that project and master rent apartment buildings in less expensive areas of LA County (as OPCC in Santa Monica does) and operate them as shared housing with four beds in each two bedroom apartment and a case worker on site. This would truly implement the “Housing First” concept and allow the social service agencies in Venice to quickly move some of our campers into housing. 

The other nonsensical aspect of using the median site for subsidized housing is that it runs counter to Venice’s need for parking. The one message I heard continuously from the Coastal Commission in our years-long battle to garner overnight restricted parking was that Venice desperately needs an over-arching plan to develop far more visitor serving parking spaces. An automated parking structure on that median lot, with one subterranean floor and two above ground would start to address the Commission’s concern. 

Finally, as I pointed out in an earlier column, affordable housing, even for those initially homeless, cannot be built without its own dedicated parking without inevitably robbing parking from Venice residents who now use it. As former homeless tenants improve their lives they acquire jobs, mates, occasionally children and cars. So, on this site, a significant amount of tenant parking will be required, which will cut into either the number of units that can be built or the number of parking spaces left for visitors and current residents. The City can finance far more units on less expensive land inland. 

Mike, may I suggest that you give up both the storage use on the Westminster site and the homeless housing project on the Venice median site.  Instead, focus all your attention on enrolling our street campers in the Coordinated Entry System, get case workers working on each and every case every day, fund the agencies that have a track record of master leasing inexpensive apartment buildings wherever they find them, and get on with helping people get off the Boardwalk, Third Street and from behind Ralphs now. 

*This information was provided by the City Housing Department to the VNC Ad-Hoc Committee on Homelessness several years ago.


(Mark Ryavec is president of the Venice Stakeholders Association. This first appeared on Yo!Venice.com.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

More Articles ...