LOS ANGELES

SPECIALVIDEO REPORT—Lake Hollywood residents and LA council members have been at each other’s throats ever since former 4^th District councilman Tom LaBonge took spade in hand and reconfigured the viewing area adjacent to the Hollywood sign. What was manageable before appears to be out of hand today and creating, according to Lake Hollywood Estates residents, serious fire dangers for their community. 

Andrew Davis, who hosts The Millennial Project website is the reporter and host on this video interview. He talks with Lake Hollywood Estates resident Tony Fisch who explains how LaBonge illegally developed the public Hollywood Sign viewing area in his neighborhood and how current LA City Councilman David Ryu refuses to resolve the issue. 

See this excellent report and video interview. 

Andrew Davis’ background and credentials are available on his website The Millennial Project.)  

Add your thoughts and comments on Facebook or Disqus below.

-cw

 DEEGAN ON LA-It sounds romantic and dreamy: the “Meadow,” the “Knoll,” the “Eucalyptus Grove,” starry nights, family fun. A destination with enhancements, a beach, an esplanade, a park, a picnic on blankets, maybe a plunge pool for swimming. It also sounds like a marketing pitch. But some are looking forward to this possible vision of Silver Lake Reservoir. 

Others see, and want, a tranquil lake to gaze at from the hillside at sunset, birds dipping their beaks, children feeding the ducks, great blue herons being sustained by the Pacific Flyway, a pastoral vision in the center of urban mass. Like nature: a release, a palliative, an escape. 

These opposing viewpoints are held by two organizations that were launched in the spring of 2016, when it became apparent that a huge vacuum may exist in what to do once the DWP has completed repairs at Silver Lake Reservoir and adjacent Ivanhoe Reservoir. 

One option is refilling the reservoir and beautifying afterwards, as Refill Silver Lake Now is asking. The group describes itself as “a dedicated group of people advocating for the prompt refilling of the Silver Lake Reservoir (Historic-Cultural Monument 422), home to many species of wildlife and critical nesting grounds for the legally protected Blue Heron. The Reservoir is not only a crucial spot on the Pacific Flyway for migrating waterfowl, but an essential body of water for the LA County Firefighters in battling blazes in the area, including Griffith Park. In short, it is the heart and soul of the 43,000 people and countless wildlife that call Silver Lake their home.” 

The other option being promoted is to create a “destination” (including a water feature.) That is the plan of Silver Lake Forward which calls itself “your new neighborhood action group” consisting of “conservation advocates, architects, activists, and entertainment and media industry executives.” They have an agenda and some political connections to try and get what they want -- far more, it sounds, than what the community is comfortable with. 

Some residents say they have been made to feel apprehensive recently by Silver Lake Forward that was launched in April by Catherine Geanuracos. It’s a successor group to the Geanuracos-led Swim Silver Lake, launched in 2014, that invited the community to embrace Geanuracos’ vision and be “part of the transformation of our neighborhood,” by turning the Silver Lake Reservoir into the "Silver Lake Plunge." Having a beach club replace the Ivanhoe Reservoir, within the Silver Lake Reservoir complex, was a concept that attracted very little interest and was dropped. However, Geanuracos has not given up on her attempts to gentrify Silver Lake Reservoir, even though the community has not acquiesced to those desires. 

A dry lake can become a fertile playground for change -- another thing that has the community wondering. When will the water return? A spokesperson for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, owner and operator of the reservoir, told CityWatch that "we are still targeting May for the start of refilling of the reservoir. We expect it to take about a month to fully cover the entire bottom and then it will continue to rise, but it will take time." 

This suggests filling the reservoir now and then beautifying or enhancing the surrounding area, if that is what is decided by the community and approved by David Ryu (CD4) and Mitch O’Farrell (CD13), the two Councilmembers that share jurisdiction over the reservoir. That’s what Refill Silver Lake Now wants. 

Ninety-six acres of open space in the middle of the city, without the water that should be there, is a tempting sight and creates anxiety about the “what-ifs?” The space is huge -- it could fit 500 single family homes, to give some sense of proportion to it. Some describe the possibilities of what can be done with Silver Lake Reservoir as “a marketplace of ideas” but residents may be more calling it “a community.” Silver Lake residents don’t want the reservoir turned into a laboratory of ideas for reimagining what has been a pretty good thing for the past 110 years -- a beautiful lake in the middle of the city. They worry about the stresses of development that a “destination” brings, change that would alter the character of the serene setting, adding traffic and other impacts to the neighborhood. 

This may be something the community did not want to begin with. 

Silver Lake Reservoir and the adjacent Ivanhoe Reservoir are now empty. (see photo left) But the community is full of questions about the future of this complex. They fear they would face the prospect of a less bucolic lake with the introduction of asphalt for parking lots and other amenities -- like restrooms, hot dog stands and food trucks – all bringing congestion, chlorine, and other unknown impacts. 

The sooner the water is returned to the reservoir the better, as that will set some boundaries for development. “There is a limited amount of additional space that could be opened to the public, and the DWP has not yet determined how much space it might need for its more limited operations once it is decommissioned as a drinking water reservoir,” said David Keitel, President of the Silver Lake Conservancy, who added, “There are now two public park spaces on the property - a multi-use park and recreation center at the south end of the property and the newer Meadow Park on the east side.” 

Another source of anxiety is, will DWP follow through and refill the reservoir on schedule? Or will Silver Lake Forward’s political connections to Councilmember O’Farrell and the Englander, Knabe & Allen lobbying firm help them pre-empt the DWP’s plans, delay the refilling of the reservoir, and instead, start preparations for their “destination?” 

The statement by DWP to CityWatch seems to indicate, for now, that the answer is “yes” -- the reservoir will be refilled in May. However, two city councilmembers and the opposing agendas of community groups must get into alignment. 

At least for now, “There is no plan to substitute a park for the water. The DWP has publicly stated more than once that to fill the space would take many years of all-day truck trips. To do so would essentially destroy Los Angeles City Historic-Cultural Landmark No. 402, designated in 1989,” said David Keitel of the Silver Lake Reservoirs Conservancy. 

“There is a variety of feelings within the community about what should be done with the land surrounding the reservoir once it has been refilled and for the long run, including improved/increased public access, the preservation of the natural environment and general property maintenance,” Keitel continued. 

“There are now two public park spaces on the property - a multi-use park and recreation center at the south end of the property and the newer Meadow Park on the east side. There is a limited amount of additional space that could be opened to the public, and the DWP has not yet determined how much space it might need for its more limited operations once it is decommissioned as a drinking water reservoir,” said Keitel. 

The Silver Lake Neighborhood Council has not yet had hearings or taken a position, but others in the community have. Refill Silver Lake Now Co-Founder Jill Cordes points out, “We don’t need to be a world class destination—this is not Chicago and the Great Lakes lakefront. We have a ton of destinations in LA. We don't need, nor want, the reservoir itself turned into something other than the beautiful body of water that it has traditionally been. If more park space is wanted around the perimeter we are absolutely open to discussing that. And remember we already have green space, including a soccer field, playground, basketball court and the Meadow. And Echo Park and Griffith Park are a mile away. What’s wrong with wanting a respite in the middle of the city?” 

Community feedback, in an empirical and non-emotional format, is being prepared through a survey by the Silver Lake Reservoirs Conservancy, and should help provide Councilmember Ryu, a strong advocate of hearing what the community has to say before making a decision, with some relevant facts. 

Conservancy President Keitel shared a preview of their current survey and what is being indicated from the results, telling CityWatch: “The Reservoirs Conservancy has consistently surveyed the resident and user communities about their desires and concerns surrounding the reservoir property, especially following the approval of the Master Plan by the DWP in 2000. SLRC commissioned its most comprehensive survey in 2016, sent to a random sample of 3,400 residential addresses within the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council boundaries. 

“While the 800+ responses are still being analyzed for inclusion in a published report, the most highly-rated attribute has been the water, i.e.: maintaining water in the reservoir space. The survey does not address specific proposals by Silver Lake Forward or Refill Silver Lake Now, because it was administered before either of those recently formed groups existed. But the community clearly expressed its appreciation of the public space as a respite, an oasis and a natural environment - and expressed concerns about it being overly developed or commercialized.” 

There’s a lot at stake here, including a sense of unwanted change, and a resistance to a repurposing of Silver Lake Reservoir that feels like it’s being forced onto the community. Public feedback and community engagement, like the Conservancy’s survey and the series of community meetings that are being hosted by Councilmembers Ryu (CD4) and O’Farrell (CD13), may help to clarify the anxieties many in the community are feeling about what going forward at Silver Lake really means.

(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.

LATINO PERSPECTIVE--This is a very interesting KCET viewer supported story in which they aimed to find out which way is South LA heading? As Latinos have become a numerical majority in what was recently an African American neighborhood, do we see tensions, collaborations or segregation? 

Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Southern California, and Walter Thompson-Hernandez, a former research assistant for the Roots|Raíces research project at the USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII), together with their team at the USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, they spent the last year interviewing one hundred Latina/o residents in the Watts, historic Central Avenue, and Vermont Square neighborhoods for the Roots|Raíces research project and put this story together. While there is no one monolithic portrait of Latino South LA, they found common stories and struggles—and also some interesting key generational differences. 

They argued that in the 1980s, thousands of Mexican and Central American immigrants began setting down roots in South LA. Some had just crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, fleeing Civil Wars and economic devastation, and others moved here after living in crowded neighborhoods near downtown and MacArthur Park; but they all came looking for the same thing: a better life.  

These were tough times in South LA. During the 1980s, South LA was reeling from the aftermath of deindustrialization, with gang wars, a crack epidemic, and impoverished neighborhoods featuring more liquor stores than grocery markets. 

One of their respondents drew a mixed portrait of neighborhood life when asked to recall what it was like in the late 1980s. “Mira, hay cosas que eran buenas…Look, there were things that were good, and bad things. At that time we were about the only Latinos on the block … Everyone else was Moreno (Black). But the majority of those who lived there were older people, and they were very nice. We never had any problems with any Black neighbors.” 

Many of these first generation Latina/o arrivals found a kind of next door neighbor civility (even if relations stayed somewhat superficial) with their older African-American neighbors, but on the streets they often encountered hostility from youth gangs, street crime, over-policing, and a climate of violence and racialized resentment that was very particular to the 80’s and early 90’s in South LA. Pushed inward also by the language barrier, the work of daily survival, and the street violence, most Latina/o newcomers responded by “shutting in and shutting out,” basically keeping to themselves. 

However, their interviews also highlighted another important aspect of South LA racial dynamics: Generations think about race in different ways. While the first generation migrated to South LA with anti-black racist ideologies—which were often hardened in the tough street climate in the 1980s and 1990s—the second generation Latinos who were raised in South Los Angeles related starkly different racial experiences with African Americans. While some had faced racially motivated tensions in the schools or the street, a large majority of the second generation expressed an affinity for African Americans that was almost non-existent among their parents’ generation. 

One of their interviewees expressed her views about the interconnectedness of South LA African American and Latino identities this way: “We grew up together. You know, they fed us collard greens; we fed them beans. You know, we grew up in each other’s homes, and we grew up together. So to us, it’s a similarity. They’re our people. We struggle, we consider them our people.” 

What to make of these generational racial differences? When thinking about the future of South LA—particularly the face of leadership—we are left with the almost inescapable reality that the face of future South LA leadership will be a cohort of young leaders who will have grown up in a community that was predominantly Latino but with a strong inclination towards the African-American political and cultural legacy of South LA. These will be leaders who will have been impacted by Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta as much as they will have been impacted by Martin Luther King, Jr. 

NEED TO KNOW 

Learn more about the “Roots|Raíces: Latino Engagement, Place Identities, and Shared Futures in South Los Angeles” researched by the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII) at USC at http://bit.ly/rootsraices.

(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

WATER WATCH--After a decision by the California State Water Resources Control Board and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, legal pollution limits have increased to allow excessive amounts of copper and lead in the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. High levels of toxic pollution pose a serious threat to the marine life and possibly to people that depend on Los Angeles’ waters. 

That’s where watchdog organizations like Los Angeles Waterkeeper come in. On July 18, LA Waterkeeper filed a lawsuit against the State and Regional Water Boards to hold them accountable for ignoring public criticism and allowing dangerous levels of pollution in our waters. 

Rather than enforce existing standards against polluters and protect the residents consuming the water in Los Angeles County, the State and Regional Water Boards tried to redefine water pollution. Both Water Boards approved a set of weaker standards — known as site-specific water-quality objectives — that override the existing, more protective water quality standards limiting copper and lead pollution levels. Compared to the existing regulations, these objectives increase pollution limits by up to 1,000 percent. 

That’s up to 1,000 percent more copper and lead in the water you and your family drink. 

These pollution violations an urgent environmental and public health issue. Copper in the water threatens aquatic life, while lead pollution poses more of a hazard to humans. These new objectives are so weak that, if allowed to continue, Los Angeles could stop treating its storm water entirely, and it would still remain in legal compliance for copper and lead pollution levels. 

This case marks the first time any organization has legally challenged the scientific validity of studies used by the State Water Board to justify site specific water quality standards. The scientifically flawed studies supporting the dramatically weaker standards were paid for and overseen by stakeholders with a financial interest in weaker water quality standards. These include cities that line the river and its tributaries, as well as Caltrans and Los Angeles County. Local and state agencies can be liable for permit violations if they discharge excessive pollution into the river. 

Our team is filing the lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act and the federal Clean Water Act. LA Waterkeeper seeks to reverse the approval of the negligent site-specific water quality objectives and restore the original – and more protective – water quality standards for copper and lead. 

This type of water management is irresponsible and damaging. These actions create a ripple effect across the state that harms our residents, our children and our quality of life. Our local communities and wildlife depend on these waters, and we demand better standards for all of us. 

Visit lawaterkeeper.org to learn more about protecting water quality in Los Angeles.

(Bruce Reznik is Executive Director of Los Angeles Waterkeeper. This piece special to CityWatch.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ANIMAL WATCH-On July 1, 2014, Mayor Garcetti launched his Mayor’s Fund for Los Angeles, “to advance civic initiatives.” It amassed $14.6 million the first year, according to the LA Times. 

An e-mail exchange between LA Animal Services GM Brenda Barnette and Maggie Neilson, former Animal Services Commissioner and CEO of Global Philanthropy Group, and the Mayor’s Office --provided AFTER my CityWatch article, “CA Feuer, Mayor Garcetti, Councilman Koretz Ignoring Public Records Requests - Is There Something to Hide?” – reveals that wasn’t the only charitable fund the Mayor planned to launch in 2014. (Photo above: Mayor Garcetti with City Attorney Mike Feuer.) 

While Garcetti’s then-Deputy Doane Liu was setting up a preliminary meeting with Neilson regarding a proposed non-profit foundation to support LA Animal Services, he was abruptly informed that Mayor Garcetti -- who has historically shown only a politically correct interest in animals -- would meet personally with Ms. Neilson. 

Here’s how the usual formalities were bypassed: 

On August 13, 2014 10:17 AM Brenda Barnette wrote to Maggie Neilson: 

“FYI us [sic] met with the Mayor yesterday. Would like to arrange for you to meet him for personal introduction. He wants an opportunity to speak publicly for the animals and would love it to be the Foundation launch this fall.”

About 90 minutes later Maggie Neilson responded: 

“Hi Brenda! First I hope your summer is going well. Give my best to Pam and let’s get together in Sept…?  I‘ve been meaning to reach out for a few months now to apologize for the slowdown in progress on this…we are poised to begin again in full in Sept. I would love to connect with the mayor; just let me know when works for him and we will make it happen. This is going to be awesome despite the brief delay.  Xo, m”   

This affectionate exchange portrays an uncomfortably informal relationship between the GM and the sole incorporator of a proposed charitable arm for LA Animal Services. Trevor Neilson and Maggie Neilson of Global Philanthropy Group reportedly advise such celebrities as Madonna, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in how to spend charitable dollars to maintain a humanitarian profile. Brenda Barnette claims to have been a “former fundraiser” (and later used that influence to have restrictive items in the MOU removed by Deputy City Attorney Dov Lesel). Shouldn’t a formal letter, or at least an professional business e-mail, have been used in arranging a meeting with the Mayor of Los Angeles?  

According to the CA Secretary of State, Maggie Neilson had filed as sole incorporator for “The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation” on August 11, 2014. 

Following is some of the history garnered from 540 pages of e-mails provided by the City Attorney’s office, plus the delayed responses from the Mayor’s Office and GM Brenda Barnette to my CPRA requests, which indicate that Brenda Barnette was intending to be very closely involved. 

On Apr. 22, 2014, Maggie Neilson wrote to her pro bono attorney, who was developing the MOU for “The Animal Rescue Foundation, “The first issue is that we want to confirm Brenda’s ability to serve on the Foundation’s Board.”  

The answer was apparently negative because later Brenda wrote to Deputy City Dov Lesel:

“With permission of the Mayor would it be permitted for me to serve as a volunteer Board member?” 

The MOU later approved by the Garcetti-appointed Animal Services Commission, showed that annual financial statements of “The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation” would be provided only to the LAAS General Manager, the Department’s senior accountant and the Commission. 

Maggie Neilson’s last-shown contact in the Mayor’s office, according to e-mails provided, was Diedre Lind, President of the Mayor’s fund. 

Doug White, director of  Columbia University's graduate program in fundraising management, advised the L A Times that, “Information about a nonprofit shouldn't be channeled through a politician's office . . . Because of the nonprofit's association with government, its officers and directors should be particularly attentive to maintaining independence.” 

An attorney for a major governmental agency explained, “When a governmental agency, such as LA Animal Services, joins with an allied non-profit to raise funds, they then have an unaccountable partner that is not subject to the scrutiny of CA Public Records Act requests. That organization then is branded by, and has the benefit of, the department’s name, trademark and good will for soliciting donations without objective requirements or accountability.” 

A CITY CHARITY BY ANY OTHER NAME 

In February, we asked, “Has L.A. Animal Services’ Brenda Barnette Crossed the Line with Questionable Fundraising MOU?”  Maggie Neilson’s new non-profit corporation purportedly created to assist LA Angeles Animal Services -- and be patterned after Foundations for LAPD, LA Fire Dept., and the Library -- is called, “The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation.” 

Neilson’s foundation does not contain the name “LA Animal Services” in its title as the other city department foundations do, nor is its corporate mission statement even similar. 

The Articles of Incorporation state, “The specific purpose of the Corporation is to ensure every animal has a home and that no adoptable animals are euthanized in Los Angeles.” 

However, the Department of Animal Services, which is a tax-funded public safety department, has a posted mission statement and mandate: “To promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of animals and people.” 

How do we correlate this and the MOU which states, “… the specific purpose of the Foundation is to raise funds to support the mission of the Department…” when seminal factors are vastly dissimilar? 

There are fundamental legal and functional differences between a public, tax-funded animal control agency such as LA Animal Services -- which is mandated to pick up and impound stray/sick animals, maintain open-entry shelters, and enforce laws to protect animals and people -- and a private, donation-based “rescue,” which offers homeless animals for adoption after owners relinquish them or fail to claim them from the shelter.  

Would donors seeking to support the idealistic goals of “The Los Angeles Rescue Foundation” feel deceived that their money were to be spent on the public-safety obligations of a city animal-control agency, including humane euthanasia when necessary? Or is money assumed to be donated for the shelter allowed to be distributed otherwise? Is it reserved to help shelter animals? Not according to the changes made by the City Attorney in the standard template that is used by other City fundraising arms.   

Other questions are:  Will “The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation” usurp the fundraising efforts of independent local rescue and animal-welfare groups in Los Angeles? And, why are City officials ignoring the fact that the LA Animal Services already has a robust, generously donor-funded and closely monitored, Animal Welfare Trust Fund? 

DEVIATIONS FROM OTHER CITY-DEPARTMENT FOUNDATIONS

GM Brenda Barnette and Maggie Neilson each received a copy of the draft MOU with the Los Angeles Fire Foundation. Deputy Dov Lesel writes: 

“Animal Services was advised to look at that contract as a model for using with a foundation to do fundraising for that department.” 

But “The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation” and Brenda Barnette requested changes. 

In a January 9, 2015 e-mail to Dov Lesel, Brenda Barnette describes herself as a “former fundraiser” and agrees with The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation’s pro bono attorney that the standard 20% overhead limitation applied to other departmental foundations is unnecessary, because “…the marketing to elevate the Department for community members will be expensive and worthwhile.” 

On March 11, 2015, after Lesel agrees to remove the 20/80% limitation on overhead, Maggie Neilson writes: 

“Thanks Dov – I do want to clarify that we are not raising funds “for” the city in the sense that the $ we raise won’t go through the city system. This will be an independent non-profit organization that will work side by side with the Department towards the same mission.” 

Lesel responds:

“If you are raising money using the Department’s name, etc., how exactly do you envision the funds being held and how do you envision the funds being spent? 

“Will you be engaging in a discussion with the Dept. re its needs and agreeing to fund certain projects during the year or funding projects that you think the Dept. needs?” 

(Note: Any answer by Neilson to these questions was omitted from the CPRA response.) 

On Oct. 06, 2015, in compliance with the Foundation’s request, Dov Lesel also agreed to remove “financial” from the support to be provided to the Department and remove any support for the Department’s “needs” — only its “mission and function.” 

DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY FAILED TO NOTICE 

According to e-mails, it wasn’t until January 13, 2016, (after Commission approval and before the Council’s PAW Committee meeting) that Dov Lesel finally read the Articles of Incorporation for “The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation.” 

On that date he sent an e-mail to Global Philanthropy Group, cc’d to Brenda Barnette, stating: 

“I noticed that there is no mention that the purpose of the organization is to support the Department.”   

The next-day response from Maggie Neilson’s assistant: 

“The articles of incorporation describe the mission of the Foundation as working to ensure every animal in Los Angeles has a home and that no adoptable animals are euthanized.  This mission supports the goals of the Department.  The purpose of the MOU is to establish the official relationship between the two entities.” 

Lesel (finally realizing what he had been working on for two years) replied:  

“[M]y concern is that this issue may be raised by City staff as it goes through the approval process, as these articles are very different than the ‘normal’ articles of incorporation for City partner fundraising organization. [sic] Normally, this type of non-profit incorporates specifically to assist the City. 

GM Brenda Barnette sent a testy retort soon after:  

“Dov, Two years later and much back and forth and NOW we have a big question after the Commission has approved.  I will appreciate your good efforts to get ma [sic] a document I can transmit without further delay.”  

Dov Lesel backs down(!): 

“Brenda you can transmit the revised clean MOU with their existing Articles, unless you believe the existing Articles might raise a red flag.” 

Lesel added:

“I can check with the CLA’s office in advance to see if this would be a concern.” 

Apparently the fact that “The Los Angeles Animal Rescue Foundation” articles are notably “very different” from other City-department fundraising partners and failed to include that it is intended “specifically to assist the City” did not bother the CLA either, because it traveled on to the Personnel and Animal Welfare Committee with no changes or “red flags.” 

With the excuse that his one-hour Personnel and Animal Welfare Committee on March 13, 2016, ran out of time, the LAAS charity item, CF16-0070, was continued.  On April 4, my CityWatch article was published. No further action has been taken yet.

HOW IS MAGGIE NEILSON CONNECTED TO LA ANIMAL SERVICES? 

On March 5, 2013, word spread through the Los Angeles humane community and far beyond City Hall that Kathleen Riordan, daughter of former Mayor Richard Riordan and popular 14-year veteran Animal Services Commissioner, was being replaced by Maggie Ragland Neilson, an unknown in animal circles. 

Neilson admitted that she had no animal experience except being a dog owner. Her background also failed to reveal any professional interest in animal welfare or experience in city government. 

Riordan’s analytical mind and penchant for asking probing questions had often set her at odds with then-Mayor Villaraigosa’s aide Jim Bickhart. And, at one meeting, Riordan’s insistence that the City’s mandatory competitive-bidding practices were not being followed caused GM Barnette to bang her head down on the Commission table and later stomp out of the meeting when the Commission agreed with Riordan.  

According to an interview with Kathy Riordan by Dana Bartholomew of the Los Angeles Daily News, Jim Bickhart informed her by telephone late on February 28 that she was being replaced by someone with “more to contribute...” 

Maggie Neilson served less than four months and was not reappointed by Mayor Garcetti, but wrote to Brenda Barnette that not being a Commissioner would allow her to work on forming a foundation to do fundraising for LAAS. 

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

NEIGHBORHOOD INVASION-Despite deep concerns among North Hollywood residents about the controversial NoHo West mega-project at 6150 Laurel Canyon Boulevard near the 170 freeway, Los Angeles City Council member Paul Krekorian made clear on Tuesday, July 26, at a public hearing that he fully supports the oversized development that’s located next to a low-slung, residential community. Once again, City Hall appears to be siding with deep-pocketed developers. 

At a well-attended LA planning department hearing at Van Nuys City Hall, Karo Torossian, the director of planning for Council Member Krekorian, testified that Krekorian backed NoHo West as proposed. Torossian and his boss, who represent North Hollywood in Council District 2, were unmoved by local residents’ (photo above) worries that the mega-project would destroy the character of their neighborhood and create nightmarish traffic problems. 

“We are concerned about the six-story apartment building,” said Diann Corral, president of the Laurel Grove Neighborhood Association, at the hearing. “It’s not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood.” She also added that no traffic mitigations had been offered to residents. 

Merlone Geier Partners, a San Francisco-based firm, and Goldstein Planting Investments, a Los Angeles-based firm, are the developers behind NoHo West, a project that features a whopping 1.6 million square feet of retail and residential space with 742 rental units. It’s a massive project that the developers have been pushing hard at City Hall. 

Merlone Geier employees, including chairman Bradley Geier and partner Peter Merlone, have given $6,500 in campaign contributions to LA politicians between 2008 and 2015, and the developer paid $240,182 for a City Hall lobbyist to schmooze with the City Council, the planning department and the building and safety department. 

Goldstein Planting Investments employees have spread around $7,400 in campaign contributions to local pols between 2009 and 2015, and the firm shelled out $174,349 for a City Hall lobbyist to meet with the City Council and city agencies. 

During the hearing, the developers seemed to wave off community concerns, going so far as to tell residents what was best for them. 

“The neighborhood needs to grow,” a representative for the developers said at the hearing. 

But many residents sounded a similar theme — while retail development was welcomed, the proposal to jam 740 rental units into two large towers with no traffic mitigations was not. One resident testified, “Density is a buzzword of developers. It is their profit point. But in a neighborhood, it is a killer.” Another resident said, “Your decisions today will affect my life.” 

Residents also believed the traffic studies in the project’s environmental impact report were inaccurate with bad data. 

There was little mention, however, about the health impacts of building NoHo West next to the 170 freeway — according to top scientific researchers at USC and UCLA, children and pregnant women who live in freeway-adjacent homes, known as “Black Lung Lofts,” are more likely to suffer serious health problems. The LA City Council continues to ignore the serious public health problem and approve such housing. 

But that’s what happens in LA’s broken planning and land-use system. Developers spread around big cash at City Hall, and expect profitable favors in return from City Council members no matter what local residents have to say. Since 2000, the real estate industry has contributed at least $6 million to the campaign war chests of LA politicians. 

Enough is enough. We need to reform LA’s broken planning and land-use system, which is what the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative will do. 

In fact, the Los Angeles Times, the LA City Council, Mayor Eric Garcetti and numerous neighborhood groups all agree that reform is desperately needed. 

Join our citywide, grassroots movement by clicking here right now to donate any amount you wish, and follow and cheer our efforts on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. You can also send us an email at [email protected] for more information. 

Developers and their politician pals will do anything to defeat our reform movement and continue their wrong-headed policies. But together, we, the citizens, can create the change that LA needs!

(Patrick Range McDonald writes for the Coalition to Preserve LA where this piece was first posted.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

CROOKED POLITICS, CROOKED DEVELOPMENT-If it is organized and it is criminal, it is organized crime. No, it does not have to come from New Jersey. No, it doesn’t have to have an Italian name, but Italians like Jews are not excluded from organized crime. At the LA City Council, crime is non-discriminatory. We’ve got Whites, Gays, Jews, Hispanics (formerly known as Mexican-Americans), Blacks, a woman, etc. The requirements to be “organized crime” are simple: (1) be organized (2) be criminal. 

What’s so bad about organized crime? After all, aren’t crime lords known for being great family men, er, I mean “family persons?” Don’t we hold the heads of organized crime in great esteem? Who doesn’t know the name Michael Corleone or John Gotti or Eric Garcetti? 

Al Capone must be turning in his grave, green with envy at the brilliant scam that has become the Los Angeles City Council. Gone are the days when hoods bribed public officials. In Los Angeles, they are the public officials! 

We don’t mean to imply that the more traditional forms of organized crime have left the scene altogether. One always wonders about the large unions, especially in the building trades. Now, we’re not saying. We’re just wondering. One tends to look askance at multi-billion dollar public works projects. That couldn’t be happening here in Los Angeles, could it? No one would ask the voters to blindly give $120 billion for mega-construction projects…would they? 

Here’s the crux of Los Angeles City Hall’s organized crime: Joe Blow city councilman is keen to tear down a bunch of rent-controlled units in the Valley and construct some of these small lot subdivision “homes.” One might ask, why tear down poor people’s homes to build these so-called single family homes which are separated by eight (8) inches?   

Here’s why: rent-controlled units are bad tax shelters for millionaires and rent-controlled units are terrible for money launderers. The only people who benefit from rent-controlled apartments are the elderly, the disabled and the poor, otherwise known in Los Angeles as the “Expendables.” As we have learned, when it comes to destroying poor people’s homes, Garcetti wins the Olympic gold medal. 

As the Los Angeles Times reported on July 28, 2016, the Feds are looking into a lot of these real estate deals. It’s almost as if the administration at LA City Hall got a heads-up on the cut-offs for reporting transactions to the Feds: the dollar limit to trigger reporting is just above the investment amounts in these fancy condos and “small lot subdivisions” single family homes. 

Rather than construct a 26-unit apartment complex where developers looking to hide their money would have to cough up several million dollars above the new federal reporting limit, they can now “invest” in several of these new individual “homes” -- where each one costs well below the reporting limit. We are sure there is no connection here between Don Garcetti’s having already raised all the money he needs for his re-election and these new small lot subdivisions. 

Here’s the genius of Los Angeles’ organized crime: It’s been in operation since 2006, the year that Garcetti first became City Council President and Penal Code § 86 criminalized vote trading. But under the City Council’s own “vote trading agreement,” each councilmember purchases the votes of each of the other councilmembers by his/her promise to never vote No on a development project in another councilmember’s district. 

We are certain the ghost of Meyer Lansky must be trying to come back from the dead so he can partake in this brilliant con. All a developer has to do to get his construction project approved is be “nice” to one Los Angeles City Councilmember. Wow, in days of yore, the old time mob had to buy off or at least intimidate the majority on a city council. In today’s LA, though, developers have the sweetest deal of all – just be nice to one councilmember and, as if by magic, City Council unanimously approves whatever each developer wants. 

They are guaranteed 100% approval no matter how many codes they violate…no matter how many poor people the developer drives from their homes…no matter how much ethnic cleansing occurs…no matter if entire neighborhoods are destroyed. 

All that matters is that the nice city councilmember puts the project on the City Council agenda for it to be unanimously approved. Let’s note that juicy word, unanimously. No matter how crooked a project may be, it is guaranteed unanimous approval. 

And the system is fool proof. Under the rigged LA voting trading system, unanimous approval does not even require a single councilmember to vote for the project. The LA City Council has fixed – and we do mean “fixed” – its vote tabulator so that the machine itself automatically votes “Yes,” even if not a single councilmember actually votes!   

Tax shelters and money laundering are big business. Billions of dollars are looted each year from foreign governments and of course drug traffickers also need places to wash their loot. So it’s interesting that at the same time demographers are reporting that more Angelenos, especially middle class professionals, are leaving Los Angeles than are choosing to move to LA, the Garcetti Administration is constructing more and more of these condos and tiny houses separated by eight inches. When more people leave a city than move into it, the housing supply increases – even if no one adds a single unit. So why is Garcetti building us into a glut – with prices just below the federal reporting line? 

Although Penal Code 86 criminalized the “vote trading agreement” that exists in the Los Angeles City Council, it has operated undisturbed for a decade under the law enforcement and judicial assumption that 10,000 consecutive unanimous votes in a 15-member city council is just a “coincidence.” Now, in our opinion…that’s a well-organized criminal enterprise.

(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.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW--The changing landscape of Los Angeles and environs has prompted concerned groups to mobilize to protect neighborhood integrity and stop the deep pockets of developers from yielding undue influence on council members and planning commissions.

All that could change if SB 734 were to pass. The bill would provide protection against potential lengthy litigation against large developments in California. In Hollywood, the $1 –billion redevelopment of the Crossroads of the World complex and a $200-million hotel/residential development at Yucca Street and Argyle Avenue are among the projects that would be protected by the new law that is intended to reduce lawsuits against large developments throughout the state.

In a nutshell, the bill would not protect mega-projects ($100-million plus) from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) suits but would fast-track the suits to wrap up within nine months instead of up to three years. The bill would also provide for higher wages for construction workers and place strict guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy.

SB 734 would extend by two years a 2011 measure supported by Brown and influenced by legislation that year that would have benefitted the now defunct Farmers Field football stadium project downtown.

However, since the 2011 measure passed, only six projects qualified for the fast-track process, including Apple’s expanded corporate headquarters in Cupertino and a proposed arena for the NBA Golden State Warriors in San Francisco. Although some of the six have been built or are currently under construction, none have needed to utilize the provisions.

Critics of the 1970 CEQA intended to preserve the environment say the law is overbearing. However, the proposed bill is limited to massive developments like sports arenas and condo towers, which could absorb any litigation costs, unlike smaller developments.

Proponents say the bill is essential to California’s economic recovery, fast-tracking job-producing, environmentally-friendly projects. The bill’s co-author, state Sen. Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) is hopeful for a bi-partisan super-majority vote in both houses by the end of the legislative session in August. If the bill is signed into law, developers would need to apply to the governor to be certified to meet the investment, wage, and environmental parameters.

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups oppose the bill because they are unhappy with the standards that developers need to meet. The state’s Judicial Council, which is sets policies for the courts, is also opposed to the measure on the grounds that the bill would push these suits to the front of the line, even before previously filed suits.

While encouraging green projects that would add to employment seems sound, SB 734 would provide fast-track litigation and special treatment only to large-scale mega-projects, weakening the ability of activist and environmental groups to impact or stop mega-developments in their neighborhoods. Large-scale projects often compromise traffic, parking, affordable housing, and neighborhood integrity and citizens should have a voice that is not quieted by a shorter litigation process.

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

-cw

POLITICS--It's a surefire way to keep us troglodytes in check.  You know, us backwards-type cave-dwellers that presume the happiest way to make Los Angeles family-friendly, environmentally-sustainable, and ripe for a first-rate economy is to preserve neighborhoods (including single-family neighborhoods), have great schools, parks, and libraries, and to keep LA right-sized?  Well, the enlightened lawmakers have fortunately found an answer to THAT Neanderthal form of thinking! 

Get past us country bumpkins and fast-track the skyscrapers!  Yep, as the Times reports, the state is considering a bill, SB 734, to fast-track expensive and high-rise developments and receive more defense against potential lengthy litigation. 

You know, that awful, AWFUL litigation to allow citizens their rights to ... have rights?  

It's certainly merited to avoid prolonged, wasteful, costly, lengthy legal battles, but is there a defense fund to allow ordinary, non-uber-wealthy citizens the ability to sue and pay the legal bills to fight the 1%-uber-wealthy types in court?  Will THIS be part of the SB 734 to ensure speedy trials, too? 

I'm guessing ... well ... NO! 

But for the City of the Angels, HERE are some ideas whose time has come. 

Rather than voting in a gazillion new taxes and bonds (I'm probably leaning towards making an exception of Measure R-2, because it's going to ensure transportation funding in a world where we need that more than ever), maybe we can just vote NO and instead: 

1) Vote in favor of this spring's Neighborhood Integrity Initiative--it's favored by pro-growth moderates who just want to have a coherent, law-abiding method of Planning and Development that's truly environmentally-sustainable, doesn't harm Angelenos, and/or force them to leave to avoid living in a City that's apparently desperate to turn itself into a hellish urban "hive". 

2) Encourage those supporting the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative to come up with similar initiatives, including a Neighborhood Council Legal Advocate, to be funded by the City, as a new but actually helpful part of City Government.   

The City Attorney does NOT represent the citizens of LA but rather the City Government (look it up), but who has the ability to counter the City when its government violates its own Charter and Bylaws?  Where can Neighborhood Councils and citizen groups go when they need to have a lawyer represent them?   

Having paid (and, potentially, pro bono) lawyers as part of LA City Government is as timely as it is morally--and legally--appropriate.  Frankly, this potential office should also have the ability to sue the State if it's violating its own laws, and/or federal laws.  And it would be paid for by OUR tax dollars, and for OUR own benefit and protection. 

And, as in my last CityWatch article, there are all sorts of tongue-in-cheek humor about why we should tax and hurt ourselves in the name of "progress", but we can also come up with a few good answers to boot. 

Because Neighborhood Councils are also a form of progress, and one where the "little guy/gal" has a place to go.   

We NEED a Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. 

And we also NEED a good lawyer or two to help us defend ourselves against governmental overreach, whether it’s from Downtown LA, the County, or even Sacramento.

(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.)

PLANNING POLITICS--When I first wrote for CityWatch about the 8150 Sunset project (“Rotten to the Core”), I thought something was really wrong with it. Now, two months later, after much research, I know there is. Back then I had heard that Luci Ibarra of the Planning Department’s Major Projects Division had insulted many who opposed the project, including the representative of West Hollywood and Councilman Ryu’s office. The talk from the neighborhood was that she was committed to the developer and hostile to any criticism.   

On Thursday, July 28, 2016, the 8150 Sunset Project breezed through the CPC hearing aided by the star power of Frank Gehry (photo above) and considerable help from Ms. Ibarra. City staff must be objective in their evaluation of projects. She was not. 

Some have described the Frank Gehry design as putting lipstick on a pig. But it is so much more than that. It is the prototype of things to come and if allowed to stand will dismantle zoning all over the City and destroy our neighborhoods. 

In a stroke of brilliance, Townscape Partners hired Gehry to redesign a project that seemed doomed to fail and turned it into a star, tripling its square footage. This is Hollywood, after all, where celebrity is worshiped and people line up to get a glimpse of the rich and famous. That is what happened on Thursday when the planning commissioners fell all over themselves in praise of a project that will overwhelm the local streets and infrastructure. 

But do they care? Not when they got Frank Gehry himself to show up and talk to them about design and his ideas on architecture. The commissioners swooned while the local community wept. Four Commissioners even admitted that they had visited his studio regarding the project. Still, they claimed to be objective. The fact that four of the six commissioners that were voting made this admission is of concern. 

After Gehry spoke the real show began. Representatives of four groups that had appealed the planning department’s initial approval of much of the project got up one at a time and listed the reasons why the City should deny this miscarriage of justice. Next, the representative of the Neighborhood Council told the Commissioners why the project would not work for the neighborhood. Sarah Dusseault, chief of staff for David Ryu, stood up next and argued that the project was too big and pointed out why it should not be approved as presented as well as the terrible precedent it would create. 

I sat in the back of the room nodding affirmatively at each point. Sarah and Julia Duncan from Ryu’s office really nailed a couple of very salient points, telling the Commissioners that, contrary to what Planning staff had written in their reports, there was ample reason and justification in the law to turn this project down, send it back for more work and to make it smaller. 

Then the crowd of extras delivered by the developers came to the microphone one at a time to sing the praises of Mr. Gehry and the project. Whenever the commissioners had a question they turned to Ms. Ibarra for clarification. If there were three facts and two did not support the developer she chose the third that did. Misinformation was sprinkled in to flavor the meal she was serving up and the commissioners devoured it.   

Members from the four groups opposing the project, along with the Neighborhood Council and the Council office, listened in silence as all of our arguments were turned down. Once again, the commissioners once sang the praises of Frank Gehry and approved the project.  All of us left worn out after a five hour ordeal in an un-air-conditioned room. But we are determined to carry on. 

I have no idea what the City of West Hollywood or the two other appellants will do, but Fix the City stands ready to protect all the neighborhoods across the City and litigate if necessary, fast-tracked or not.  

This project is welfare for the rich, greed on steroids -- one more example of the ruling class sticking it to the rest of us. It is also the advanced guard of projects that will destroy zoning as we know it. Using Senate Bill 1818, (Density Bonus) law, Townscape partners agreed to set aside 28 of their 249 apartments for very low income residents. For that they are asking the Commissioners to grant them a 300% increase in square footage instead of the 35% they are really entitled to get. Instead of asking for a Height District change to increase the FAR, Townscape is using the Density bonus law. Fifty (50) of those 249 units they will build will be condos selling from three to twelve million dollars. There will also be 65,000 sq. feet of commercial space.   

In their own financial statement, they claim they will make a 15.9% profit which translates to $52 million. Like I said, welfare for the rich. They will also close the southbound section of Crescent Heights from Sunset Boulevard without the standard process required by the Streets and Highway Code to vacate it. They claim they will use B permits to cover over the road and take over the current traffic island which has its own address (8118 Sunset) to create an outdoor public space. 

When questioned on how they can do this, Planning’s answer is the City will continue to own it (the island and road to be covered over by cement) and the developer will maintain it.  First the people of California own the streets, not the City but who’s going to stop the City from doing this? This is the big gamble developers are taking all over Los Angeles. They ask themselves, how many projects can we slide through before someone sues us?  Given that there are more of them than groups who can afford to sue, the odds are forever in their favor. 

We the people have few options available to us except to carry on and organize to affect change. I am sensing all over the City a feeling similar to the one that led to the secession movement. What is different this time is that it is not just the Valley and some in Hollywood that feel disaffected -- it is most of Los Angeles.  

(Jim O’Sullivan is one of the Fix the City founders and President of the Miracle Mile Residential Association.)  Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EDUCATION POLICY ALERT-Well, here's our chance! Imagine my surprise when I heard on NPR this morning that State Superintendent of schools Tom Torlakson -- my very favorite State official -- is Acting Governor of California for the rest of the week. 

This is what happens when your whole state government comprises the biggest delegation at the Democratic National Convention. 

While every other force in Golden State politics is looking for unity in the City of Brotherly Love, my mind leaps to the education priorities we could advance! 

It wouldn't be the first time an Acting Governor did a whole lot of governing when Jerry Brown was out of state. 

So I’ve penned a letter to the Superintendent to offer my assistance: 

Dear Acting Governor Torlakson, 

First off, congrats! 

I am writing you to offer to rush to the State Capital and work feverishly alongside you to advance our public education priorities while the rest of California’s political wish lists languish in the Philadelphia International Airport baggage claim. (It’s not their fault they exceeded the 3.7 ounce limit.)

I admit, I’ve been feeling envy what with all the selfies my friends have been posting. Betsy pictured with Dolores Huerta. Randi pictured with Bill Clinton. Carolyn and Dallas were even interviewed about their experiences as mother and daughter in Hillary’s and Bernie’s respective delegations.

But, oh, the things we can get done for our schools while they're distracting our elected officials! 

By the way, Tom, I hope you don't let the “Acting” qualifier get in the way of the work we can do together. The philanthropists and politicians certainly haven't let their lack of credentials get in the way of dictating what our teachers and principals do. So let's give it a go! 

Just say the word and I’ll be on the next Southwest flight to Sacramento. I’ll use carry-on, so my only baggage will be emotional -- a decade of mourning for the once top-funded California public school system and my more recent PTSD from the assault on public schools by the charter lobby. 

But there’s no time for a pity party. Here’s my short list of what we mice should do while the cats are away.

What’s that? Charter = accountability? That’s so funny you say that because...they’re lying.

Charter schools claim to receive autonomy in exchange for more accountability. But this is just a slogan because--have you opened a newspaper lately?! 

There’s the report of Principal David Fehte of El Camino Real Charter High School in the Southern part of the state who’s been flying first class and buying expensive wine and charcuterie plates at fancy hotels (does he wine and dine alone?) while he moonlights as a scout for the NBA. (Now that Arne Duncan has resigned as US Secretary of Education, I’m pretty sure basketball connections no longer exempt alleged cheaters from scrutiny.) 

Then there’s the LA Times report of a charter school paying $566,803 to a teacher who sued because the director, Kendra Okonkwo, forced her to travel with her to Nigeria to marry Okonkwo's brother-in-law to gain US citizenship. 

And Gulen.

I know, Caprice Young is cozy with the politicos -- but they’re all in Philly this week! (Note: send Philadelphia Inquirer reporter list of California Democrats who have ignored the Gulen scandal said reporter has been covering for years. Pitch idea of confronting them on the Convention floor.) 

And I get it -- geopolitical conflict is complicated. But the moms at the PTA meeting said there isn’t room on Tuesday’s agenda between the bakesale and ordering “I’m a proud public school parent” t-shirts to debate which side of an attempted foreign coup our middle school should be on. They just want the money for our schools that the cult leader in the Poconos is allegedly sucking out of the US education ATM through the vast network of charter schools he has “inspired.”

Here are a few articles in preparation for our discussion: the Washington Post, the New York Times,  60 Minutes, The Atlantic Monthly, just for starters. 

I can't make any promises, but I’m pretty sure the expert, researcher Sharon Higgins, would rush right over to Sacramento from Oakland to brief us on this. Shall I tell her 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday? (Note: Locate entrance closest to freight elevator for her BOXES of documents.) 

Tom, do the blinds in the Capital totally block the sun? I ask because we could co-host a screening of Killing Ed, the Mark Hall documentary that tells this story. The Nigerian forced marriage has not yet hit the big screen, but we can discuss with Hollywood producers if you wish. Geronimo could write the “based-on-a-true-story-I-swear-I’m-not-joking” screenplay. (Note: clear 4 front parking spaces for stretch limo and ego of Hollywood producer.)

Voters were hoodwinked and they know it. Here's a 4-minute video to brief you on how the parasitic law creates conflict, featuring “me.”    

Just throw away the whole project. Period. (Note: Do not exceed 5 minute discussion on this item.)

Some politicians might think kids need more reading and writing drill-and-kill just because I said "ain't" but I know you can take a joke. KPCC’s Mary Plummer covered this law when she was the knock-out arts education reporter for the NPR affiliate. Guess what? Now, she’s the knock-out  "political” reporter, so she can go exactly where the story takes us. I would imagine she could cover a political angle for a lot of the reports she covered in education.

My own LAUSD middle school’s library has been shuttered for five years since LAUSD cut all the school librarians in an effort to offload pension costs of elderly teachers. It was shameful. And, no, telling principals they can cut something else in order to fund a librarian is not funding libraries. 

Google could provide wifi, HP could provide the printers, VOX could create a digital version of The Weekly Reader (I know--I'm showing my age), etc. etc. In exchange, hang a plaque in each library saying they did something for humanity by helping to make this generation literate.

Sure, AB1369 was progress, but “suggestions” rather than requirements don’t go far enough. One in five students have dyslexia, and most cases go undetected for years. Can you imagine sitting in school and not being able to access written curriculum for years? We currently don’t test until two years after a teacher notices that a student is suffering. There is lots of evidence that this would put a major dent in the high school dropout rate, too. Now that’s a Data Wall I’d like to see in every school! I could pretty much promise that the dedicated folks from Decoding Dyslexia would rush over to help us with the details. They’ve been working on it for years.

12:00 lunch meeting on Wednesday? (Note: Search yelp for good lunch deliveries near the Capital.)

Charter schools should not be offloading their pension costs onto the public school districts. That's like charging the US Postal Service for the pensions of FedEx drivers. 
(Note: Are the union leaders away this week, too?)

I hear Eli likes to send his money to Arizona.  Getting Eli out of education policy is our best chance of returning education funding to levels that are not a national embarrassment, and eliminating all number of his “disruptions.” 

That about covers it for now. If Jerry has a long layover, I'll make further plans. I await your call! 

(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.

SKID ROW … ‘FIRST PERSON’ REPORT- In what can only be described as a “massive shake-up”, Skid Row Housing Trust has just taken major steps that change the core if it’s existence. 

SRHT last week fired ALL of their nighttime desk clerks and replaced them with armed security guards. This week, they notified ALL of their tenants that they are now working with the Los Angeles Police Department to rid their buildings of drug dealers. 

NEW GEOGRAPHY--The long awaited and highly touted Santa Monica extension brought an approximately 50 percent increase in ridership of the Los Angeles Expo light rail line between June 2016 and June 2015. The extension opened in mid May 2016. In its first full month of operation, June 2016, the line carried approximately 45,900 weekday boardings (Note), up from 30,600 in June 2015, according to Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) ridership statistics.

However MTA ridership continued to decline, with a 51,900 loss overall. Bus and rail services other than the Expo line experienced a reduction of 67,300 boardings (Figure).

Between June 2015 and June 2016, rail boardings rose 30,500, while bus boardings declined 82,400. In other words there was a loss of 2.7 bus riders for every new rail rider over the past year. Los Angeles transit riders have considerably lower median earnings than in the cities with higher ridership, and lower than the major metropolitan average (see the analysis by former Southern California Rapid Transit District Chief Financial Officer Tom Rubin and "Just How Much has Los Angeles Transit Ridership Fallen?"

Note: A passenger is counted as a boarding each time a transit vehicle is entered. Thus, if more than one transit vehicle is required to make a trip, there can be multiple boardings between the trip origin and destination.

Because the addition of rail services, as in Los Angeles, can result in forcing bus riders to transfer because their services can be truncated at rail stations, the use of boardings as an indicator of ridership can result in exaggeration, as the number of boardings per passenger trip is increased.

This may have produced a decline of as much as 30 percent in actual passenger trips since 1985, as a number of rail lines have been opened in Los Angeles. 

(Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council. This piece was posted originally at New Geography.) 

-cw

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-We have all heard the expression “getting blood from a stone.” That is the conundrum facing City Hall’s efforts to solve LA’s housing crisis through private investment. It isn’t really working, and the City’s half-hearted efforts have been further complicated by two upcoming ballot initiatives. The Building Better LA initiative, on the November 2016 ballot, would require affordable housing built through municipal programs to utilize unionized labor. 

Then, in March 2017, LA voters will weigh in on a second, more comprehensive initiative, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. If approved, this ordinance would impose a two year ban on City Council legislative actions that spot-zoned and/or spot-planned high-rise luxury housing projects. During this hiatus, the City would be required to begin the update of LA’s legally required but outdated General Plan, eventually including the city’s 35 Community Plans. 

While these updates would identify locations that had the greatest need and potential for affordable housing construction, the Initiative also permits the construction of 100 percent affordable housing projects through City Council zone changes and/or General Plan Amendments. 

In response to these two initiatives and an undeniable crisis in LA’s supply of affordable housing, the City Council directed the Department of City Planning to investigate a value capture approach to increase the production of affordable housing. If adopted, the City would attach a condition to all residential discretionary actions: each project must include a specific amount of affordable housing. 

The City Council made their bed, and now they must sleep in it. 

On one hand, the Council and their planners are fully committed to neo-liberal economics, which means slashing as many public housing programs and governmental regulations on private investment as possible, replacing them with harsh policing paired with government incentives for developers. As intended, this approach has fanned the flames of real estate speculation. And, driven by the economic imperative to maximize profit, this feeding frenzy has resulted in a glut of financially lucrative luxury housing, but virtually no affordable housing. 

In the face of these unwelcome trends, the luxury housing crowd has spun two whoppers about LA’s housing crisis that I have previously debunked: 1) Luxury housing produces affordable housing by pulling down the rents of middle and low income housing. 2) Luxury housing transmutes into affordable housing, a type or reverse alchemy called filtering. When pressed, however, the tellers of these tall tales cannot cite any addresses or neighborhoods in LA where these supposed miracles have actually taken place. 

On the other hand, as hinted at in the value capture report, LA’s amalgam of existing housing programs barely produces any net gain in affordable housing. This is because many market housing projects have extensively eliminated existing affordable housing through relentless demolitions and evictions. The value capture report, however, did not mention a third factor that has shrunk the supply of affordable housing. As reported by John Schwada in CityWatch  the City of LA does such a poor job at inventorying and monitoring affordable housing that many landlords surreptitiously rent out these units at market prices, sometimes even as short-term rentals.  

This is why the City Council has uncomfortably moved down the path of increased regulation of discretionary residential land use actions through a value capture ordinance. It is their silent admission that their old programs and old justifications (the whoppers) have run out of gas. Even though the value capture option conflicts with their devotion to classical neo-liberal hocus-pocus, they don’t have a better option until such time that the Federal government restores many slashed public housing programs of yore. 

The Value Capture report describes existing affordable housing programs in LA, such as the poorly performing Density Bonus/SB 1818 option. It also inventories more dynamic programs from other cities, such as NYC. In the Big Apple, Mayor de Blasio has successfully championed inclusionary zoning (i.e., mandatory affordable housing requirements.) 

The report also outlines potential value capture approaches that LA should consider, largely imposing an affordable housing requirement on residential projects built through discretionary actions. Depending on the City Council’s eventual ordinance, LA’s likely value capture ordinance will include on-site affordable housing requirements for most discretionary actions, including the General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, and Height District Changes targeted by the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. Two other provisions, allowing developers to meet their affordable housing requirement through off-site construction or in lieu payments could also be folded into the final ordinance. 

But, regardless of what the final value capture ordinance will look like, I wish the City Council the best of luck, because their ordinance will have little impact on LA’s affordable housing crisis. This is primarily because the Council and its value capture ordinance cannot avoid the essence of their conundrum: the need of developers to maximize profits from their real estate investments. The greater the City’s affordable housing requirement, the lower the resulting private investment and number of affordable units. The smaller the City’s affordable housing requirement, the greater the resulting private investment in luxury housing. There really is no escape from this affordable housing dilemma. 

As far as I can tell, wide-scale up-zoning and up-planning is not proposed in the value capture ordinance, although this will certainly happen through Community Plan Updates and re:codeLA ordinances. But, if the City Council did eventually attach a mandatory affordable housing requirement to every Community Plan Update or re:codeLA ordinance containing up-zoning and up-planning, it would be a New York City-style sea change for Los Angeles. But, given the grip that real estate interests have on LA City’s elected officials and policy wonks, this outcome is now a flight of fancy. 

Furthermore, if the eventual value capture ordinance adopted an SB 1818 approach of automatically approving economic incentives for all zone changes and General Plan amendments that include an affordable housing component, it would be an extraordinary windfall for property owners. After their entitlements, with only token City surveillance, some of these new “affordable” units could be quietly rented out at market rates or the real money-maker: Air BnB’s. 

When this happens, the City Council’s self-imposed conundrum may finally reach its breaking point. They would have to admit that no private market approach, even value capture, can successfully address LA’s – or for that matter the entire country’s – housing crisis. The public sector could then either resume the construction and management of affordable housing or face levels of overcrowding, homelessness, and civil disturbances unseen in the United States for many decades and again beyond the capacity of the LAPD to contain. 

(Dick Platkin is a former LA city planner who reports on local planning issues for CityWatch. He also serves on the boards of the Beverly Wilshire Homes Association and the East Hollywood NC Planning Committee. Please send any comments or corrections to [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

POT POLITICS-California may soon join the growing number of states that allow recreational marijuana by passing the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Initiative (Proposition 64) on the November ballot. The measure would legalize marijuana and hemp under state law. Portions of the measure could take effect as soon as the day after Election Day. 

The potential for recreational legalization should cause local officials to rethink the way they currently approach marijuana laws and whether that approach should change before Election Day.

It aims to establish state agencies to oversee the licensing and regulation of a marijuana industry, enacting a sales tax of 15 percent and a cultivation tax of $9.25 per ounce for flowers and $2.75 per ounce for leaves, with exceptions for medical marijuana sales and cultivation. Proposition 64 is considered likely to pass, with recent polls indicating that roughly 60 percent of Californians support recreational legalization, and with a reported excess of 600,000 signatures on the initiative and financial backing of more than $2.25 million to date. 

Around the country, the trend toward legalizing recreational use of marijuana is growing more popular. Recreational marijuana use is legal in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia. Eleven other states, including Nevada, Minnesota, New York, Maryland and Massachusetts, may be legalizing recreational marijuana in the near future. Beyond that, 24 states already allow medical marijuana to treat a variety of physical and psychological ailments. 

Proposition 64 is endorsed by the Marijuana Policy Project of California and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana laws. If passed, it would legalize marijuana for those 21 years of age and over and would establish the Bureau of Marijuana Control within the Department of Consumer Affairs to regulate and license the marijuana industry. 

Proposition 64 would allow local governments to “enforce state laws and regulations for nonmedical marijuana businesses and enact additional local requirements for nonmedical marijuana businesses, but not require that they do so for nonmedical marijuana businesses to be issued a state license and be legal under state law.” It would also allow local governments to ban recreational marijuana businesses entirely. With respect to cultivation, Proposition 64 would allow local governments to “reasonably regulate” cultivation through zoning and other local laws, but only to ban outdoor cultivation outright. 

Proposition 64 would require local governments to allow indoor cultivation in private residences, and further indicates that any local ban on outdoor cultivation would be automatically repealed if the California Attorney General determines the federal government has legalized marijuana. The wording of the initiative likely makes its application both retroactive and prospective, meaning it would preempt existing regulations if they are inconsistent and prohibit new regulations that violate its provisions. 

Beyond that, some of Proposition 64’s provisions would likely take effect almost immediately. While the provisions surrounding recreational retailers and other businesses would not become functionally effective until the State began issuing licenses on January 1, 2018, recreational use and cultivation in private residences could begin as soon as the day after the election. 

As a result, it is imperative for concerned public agencies to consider, and to enact, regulations surrounding recreational use of marijuana prior to Election Day. 

This may seem counterintuitive — after all, it involves regulating around a law that has not even been enacted yet — but public agencies that fail to pass ordinances surrounding these issues could face preemption and grandfathering problems in the days, weeks and months after Proposition 64 passes. Artfully drafted ordinances can avoid some of this awkwardness by including provisions only triggered by the legalization of recreational marijuana. 

For example, a public agency could pass an ordinance banning all cultivation outright, and include a subsection clarifying that, in the event indoor cultivation in private residences is legalized, a regulatory scheme of the city’s choosing kicks in immediately. This would allow public agencies to regulate how they wish under current law, while protecting themselves in the event Proposition 64 passes. 

But the window is short. Most public agencies would have to take a proposed ordinance to a planning commission and have two readings of the ordinance before their city council, and all of this would arguably need to occur prior to October 8 to allow the 30-day period to lapse so the ordinance is effective prior to Election Day. 

Even if Proposition 64 becomes law, local governments still have wide latitude to regulate marijuana within their jurisdictions, but public agencies should act soon to ensure the most protection against grandfathered uses or preempted local schemes. A brand new regulatory scheme is growing in California, and local governments need to act swiftly to cultivate the proper regulations to ensure their communities flourish in the brave new world of recreational marijuana legalization.

(Originally published in PublicCEO. Jordan E. A. Ferguson provides legal services to cities, special districts and private clients across Southern California. As an associate in the Municipal Law and Special Districts practice groups of Best Best & Krieger LLP, his practice involves city attorney and general counsel services. He can be reached at [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EASTSIDER-Recently, the LA Times did an excellent investigative series about OxyContin use in LA, choreographed by the drug’s manufacturer, Purdue Pharma. 

The stories of people hooked on this stuff, and the collateral damage done to their loved ones is well presented by the Times, so I won’t even go there. Suffice it to say that their headline, “You Want a Description of Hell?” seems spot on. 

More pertinent to this article is the second part of the story, Here, with devastating detail, the Times proved beyond a reasonable doubt what the drug maker knew as it supplied hundreds of thousands of OxyContin pills to a sleazy front in MacArthur Park. 

So what do we have here other than a corrupt company pushing pills to the unsuspecting, without having to pay a price? Even if you are lucky enough not to have a loved one or relative with a drug problem, let’s consider the costs -- the costs to us, the taxpayers of Los Angeles -- as contrasted to the profits of big pharma and the even larger profits reaped by the big banks who launder the drug money. 

Our Costs--In most cities, public safety represents between 60 and 70 percent of the general fund budget and Los Angeles is no exception to the rule. That’s a lot of taxpayer money. And the more money spent on finding and apprehending drug related offenders, the less money is available for the community’s other safety concerns. We all know there exists a lot of unfunded need for public safety services. 

The LA City budget barely touches the surface of those costs such as paying for the criminal justice system required to handle all judicial matters as well as the costs of incarceration, rehabilitation, medical treatment and so forth. 

An enormous amount of money for that must come out of taxpayers’ pockets. And that doesn’t even begin to touch the human pain and suffering so eloquently described by the LA Times. 

We tend to shy away from a cost/benefit analysis of drug addiction and its associated expenses. But drugs and public safety are closely intertwined issues in our City, and the combination is hideously expensive, both in terms of the devastation to people and the budget-breaking costs to law enforcement -- and us. 

When dope dealers get busted, they go to jail. If addicts get caught, they also often go to jail for the crimes they committed to pay for the drugs and/or they clog up our health care system as their bodies deteriorate and they start to die dirty.

Purdue Pharma’s response to the Times article was to defend their product, OxyContin. 

They did not respond to the fact that they knew about the Lake Medical Clinic and the incredible amount of “product” that they were selling -- yet did nothing other than cover up. And back to costs, it took an entire team of federal, state and local law enforcement to build and prosecute the case. 

Their Profits--Clearly, we lose, big time. So who wins? How about the drug companies like Purdue Pharma and big financial services institutions like HSBC? In the case of Purdue Pharma, the money trail is pretty clear. They have made about $31 billion dollars selling OxyContin. 

It is also clear that Purdue Pharma decided to expand their market by targeting those with “chronic non-cancer pain,” which includes a broad swath of society. In such expanding markets, the economic winners are not only big pharma but the professional class of marketing executives, database developers, marketing collateral designers, sales forces, and middle managers. Not to mention attorneys.

It would seem, in fact, that if you are a white-collar crook, be it with a corporation like Purdue Pharma or a huge financial services institution like HSBC (an international banking corporation with its headquarters in London,) you can get away with serious crime and not pay a dime. 

I mention HSBC specifically, because there is clear evidence that they engaged in massive money laundering, both for foreign states such as Iran and Sudan, as well as good old fashion laundering of drug money for the drug cartels. For proof, as well as a link to the 288 page staff report, see “Too Big to Jail: Internal Treasury Documents Reveal Why Justice Department Did Not Prosecute HSBC.”  

There is no doubt that Attorney General Eric Holder intervened in the proposed Indictment of HSBC over these very issues. Result? No indictment. And this was not a one-off, by the way. In her confirmation hearings, our current Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, suggested that there was not enough evidence to prosecute HSBC, even though she oversaw the case and was aware of the staff recommendations. 

The Takeaway--Something is clearly wrong with our system of justice. And you and I are clearly paying for it in more ways than one. If the feds would start doing their job for a change, by prosecuting huge crooked drug companies and financial services institutions, then maybe the word would trickle down. I don’t know how direct a correlation there is, but it seems to me that vigorous prosecution of so-called “white-collar” crime would mean less profit for the corporate crooks and less crime for you and me in Los Angeles. 

Hey, one can hope.

(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. 

PLANET WATCH--As wildfire rages in California, flooding affects millions in India and China, and eggs are fried on sidewalks in Iraq, scientists say global climate catastrophe is surpassing predictions. 

Southern California's years-long drought has resulted in one of the "most extreme" wildfires the region has ever seen. 

Record global heat in the first half of 2016 has caught climate scientists off-guard, reports Thompson Reuters Foundation. 

"What concerns me most is that we didn't anticipate these temperature jumps," David Carlson, director of the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) climate research program, told Thompson Reuters Foundation late Monday. "We predicted moderate warmth for 2016, but nothing like the temperature rises we've seen." 

"Massive temperature hikes, but also extreme events like floodings, have become the new normal," Carlson added. "The ice melt rates recorded in the first half of 2016, for example—we don't usually see those until later in the year." 

Indeed, extreme weather events are currently wreaking havoc around the world. 

In Southern California, firefighters are battling one of the "most extreme" fires the region has ever seen. The so-called sand fire had consumed 38,346 acres as of Wednesday morning and forced the evacuations of 10,000 homes, and one person has died. 

Meteorologist Eric Holthaus reported on the unusual fire last Friday in Pacific Standard: 

The fire, which started as a small brush fire along the side of Highway 14 near Santa Clarita, California, on Friday, quickly spread out of control under weather conditions that were nearly ideal for explosive growth. The fire doubled in size overnight on Friday, and then doubled again during the day on Saturday. 

"The fire behavior was some of the most extreme I've seen in the Los Angeles area in my career," says Stuart Palley, a wildfire photographer based in Southern California. "The fire was running all over the place. … It was incredible to see." There were multiple reports of flames 50 to 100 feet high on Saturday, which is unusual for fires in the region.

Time-lapse footage  filmed on July 23 showed the fire's tall flames and rapid growth.

"Since late 2011," Holthaus explained, "Los Angeles County has missed out on about three years' worth of rain. Simply put: Extreme weather and climate conditions have helped produce this fire's extreme behavior." 

The fire is an omen of things to come, according to Holthaus: "Even if rainfall amounts don't change in the future, drought and wildfire severity likely will because warmer temperatures are more efficient at evaporating what little moisture does fall. That, according to scientists, means California's risk of a mega-drought  --  spanning decades or more  --  is, or will be soon, the highest it's been in millennia." 

As University of California professor Anthony LeRoy Westerling wrote Tuesday in the Guardian: "A changing climate is transforming our landscape, and fire is one of the tools it uses. Expect to see more of it, in more places, as temperatures rise." 

Meanwhile, in India's northeast, Reuters reported Tuesday that over 1.2 million people "have been hit by floods which have submerged hundreds of villages, inundated large swathes of farmland and damaged roads, bridges and telecommunications services, local authorities said on Tuesday."

Reuters added that nearly 90,000 people are currently being housed in 220 relief camps. 

"Incessant monsoon rains in the tea and oil-rich state of Assam have forced the burgeoning Brahmaputra river and its tributaries to burst their banks -- affecting more than half of the region's 32 districts," the wire service reported. 

Local officials also told the media that "more than 60 percent of region's famed Kaziranga National Park, home to two-thirds of the world's endangered one-horned rhinoceroses, is also under water, leaving the animals more vulnerable to poaching." 

An unusually heavy monsoon season has also devastated communities in northern China, AFP reported Monday, with nearly 300 dead or missing and hundreds of thousands displaced after catastrophic flooding hit the region. 

And in Iraq, temperatures last week reached such unprecedented heights that a chef literally fried an egg on the sidewalk. The TODAY show tweeted footage of the incident: 

Stateside, the heat dome continues to inflict scorching summer temperatures across the country. In one Arizona locale, for example, meteorologists are predicting a scorching high temperature on Wednesday of 114° Fahrenheit. One Arizona resident posted a video Tuesday desperately asking people to pray for the state as it faces more hot weather. "It is still six billion degrees," the resident lamented. "Lord, we need you." 

Yet there appears to be little relief in sight: for the first time ever, USA Today reported Tuesday, the U.S. federal government's climate prediction center is forecasting hotter-than-normal temperatures for the next three months for "every square inch" of the country. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. 

(Nika Knight is a writer at Common Dreams … where this piece was first posted.) Photo: Nick Ut/AP. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

JUST THE FACTS--The latest Los Angeles City Crime Statistics reflect a growing trend of more and more crime victims and little relief in sight from our law enforcement agencies. From the LAPD to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to the California Highway Patrol, more and more attacks on our dedicated law enforcement personnel are taking place with few residents standing up and voicing their support for the men and women who risk their lives Protecting and Serving our diverse communities of Southern California.

And, the LA area men and women in blue are not the only ones paying a price. According to preliminary data compiled by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, as of July 20, 2016, sixty-seven federal, state and local law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty this year, increasing eight percent over the 62 officers killed in the same period last year. We've also found an alarming 78 percent spike in firearms-related officer fatalities, many of which were ambush-style killings.

Thirty-two officers have been killed in firearms-related fatalities this year, a dramatic increase of 78 percent, compared to 18 deaths during the same period last year. Traffic-related fatalities were the second leading cause of officer deaths, with 24 officers killed thus far in 2016. This represents a 17 percent decrease over the 29 officers killed in traffic-related incidents during the same period last year.

It is reported that crime in Los Angeles City is up in many categories. Namely assaults, robberies and property offenses. The overall crime increase is at 6.3%. Property crime is up 3.8% while violent crime has increased 15.9%. Violent crime has led by 19.2% in aggravated assaults and16.8% in robberies. 

The reasons for the increases can be attributed to many factors. Officers’ fear of being accused of profiling or engaging in selective enforcement is a contributing factor. Gang violence, the exploding homeless population, and the 2014 Proposition 47 that reduced many crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor contribute to those negative numbers. And, Measure 109 has done its part .... while the state prison population has been reduced, the communities have become the victims of these measures. 

You will soon be voting on the elimination of the California Death Penalty. Proposition 62 will be on the November ballot. Keep in mind, with the elimination of the California Death Penalty, more people will be filling the overcrowded State Prisons forcing the release of other violent inmates into our communities.  

If you live in a portion of Los Angeles served by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the Sheriff reports an increase of 8.4% in violent crime and a 6.8% in property crimes.

●●

HE FOUGHT THE LAW AND THE LAW WON-- There was an arrogant man that owned a number of trailers and parked them on valley streets to advertise a variety of items and services. The trailers were left on major roadways and created serious traffic hazards throughout the San Fernando Valley and generated a large number of resident complaints. 

At the time, I was a Los Angeles City Councilman and moved to eliminate the trailers from the roadways. Signs were posted prohibiting the parking of the trailers on Valley streets and citation enforcement began. The citations had little to no impact on the parking of the trailers and the frustration of the community grew more and more. 

I worked with then Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield, our current Los Angeles City Councilman, who represented my district in the assembly. We teamed up and drafted state legislation prohibiting the parking of the trailers on all roadways. The legislation eliminated the problem and peace returned to the communities. The arrogant man … I will not mention his name … appealed the state legislation. This month, a federal court upheld the legislation and ruled that it did not violate any rules or constitutional provisions. I Thank Councilman Blumenfleld and the court for upholding the legislation banning the trailers from all city roadways.

●●

TAXES AND FEES AND MORE TAXES AND FEES … ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT SOME OF THE PROPOSED INCREASES--The DWP has already increased your Water and Power Rates. The new rates from 2016 thru 2020 have been approved and will be reflected on your future DWP Bills. As they say, this is a done deal and nothing can be done to change it. 

However, you have a vote for the proposed future tax and fee increases. 

I will start with increased taxes for the Transit. This will add a ½ cent to sales tax until the end of time. This will increase our sales tax to 9 ½ cents. 

There is the proposed $1.5 Billion Dollar Bond or Parcel Tax to address the Homeless. Either way, your taxes will increase … likely your property tax. 

The County has proposed … then changed their mind … to implement a tax on Marijuana.   This is assuming that the November election will see Marijuana approved for recreational use in California. This is proposed to raise between $78 to $130 million annually. 

If you are rich enough to be in a Millionaires club, you will see an increase in your taxes to address the homeless. 

As we approach the November election, I am sure additional taxes and tax increases will be brought up to address the many ills of our city. The current Los Angeles City budget of $8.76 BILLION is just not enough money to run the City of the Angeles!  

(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].)

-cw

WATCHING THE NEIGHBORHOOD-An entity called a ‘Business Improvement District’ or BID is almost here. The City Council will meet and vote on its creation in late August. What? You don’t know anything about it? You and just about everyone else in Venice. This is one very big secret. 

Here’s what it is. A specific ‘district,’ run by a public-private partnership, whose boundaries have been gerrymandered to include properties owned by the pushers of this entity and large swathes of city property. Boundaries include Ocean Front Walk from North Venice to Barnard Way, includes part of Rose, touches parts of Main St., 4th, Sunset, Abbot Kinney, and Windward. It’s a large area. See the map for a better picture of its reach. The public relations put out by supporters is that they are goilng to make our world in Venice cleaner and ‘safer.’ I think we are hearing that line right now on our national political scene. Who doesn’t like ‘safe?’

This proposed BID will be run by a public-private partnership which will receive funding from the City estimated to include about $450,000 from the General Fund, to run the proposed ‘clean and safe’ services. There appears to be little accountability and oversight built into this process. The assessments on the owners (don’t call it a tax) will filter into the coffers of the partnership. We are talking about millions of dollars. Property owners who vote for the BID, will have no say in what goes on with this entity unless they somehow get on its board. Fat Chance! 

The gerrymandered district includes a huge amount of city-owned property. It is estimated that the assessment from city property will comprise about 25% of assessment monies collected and, in turn, the managers of city land will have 25% of the vote for or against a BID. You already know how the city will vote on this. The deck is stacked in favor of a ‘yes’ vote for a BID. 

This new group will create its own quasi police force complete with batons, pepper spray and uniforms to keep ‘order.’ Call them green shirts, call them brown shirts — we all know what they are: minimally trained ‘officers’ who will attempt to assert their newly acquired authority over the residents and whomever else (think the poor and the homeless) crosses their path, get in their way or those who just don’t look like they ‘belong.’ They are the Deciders. Sounds scary, right? You should be scared. BID’s are supposed to keep the place cleaner too — now that’s not scary, right? Who doesn’t like clean? So remember the BID mantra — ‘clean and safe.’ 

We have not read a public statement from the council office on this BID creation. BID’s seem like an elegant way to outsource the City’s job and many of its responsibilities. Cities seem to love BID’s.

Last but not least, we should tell you that this very quietly forming BID is being pushed by some property owners who are the most interested in controlling OFW — owners who have stealthily converted many of our residential units into short-term rentals —entire buildings we should add, are pushing for a BID formation. Some of the BID pushers are now being investigated by the LA City Attorney for illegal conversions of rental units. This was announced in the LA Times. 

Gentrification on OFW will be a by-product of this entity as it has been in other BID’s in other cities. While there may be a lot in this BID for the big property owners, there is nothing in it for tenants who will have absolutely no say in the BID forming around them and their businesses. No vote, nada. In no way is a BID a democratic process. Tenants can expect the property owners to pass on the costs of the BID to them. 

If you want this BID, stay quiet. If you don’t, say something. Make ‘big noise.’ There are many lawsuits already filed against BID’s all over the city, your big noise will be in very good company. 

Tara Devine is the BID’s consultant and point person for information. Her contact is: [email protected]

(Marian Crostic and Elaine Spierer are co-founders of Imagine Venice … where this commentary was first posted.)  Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

HERE’S WHAT I KNOW--A petition to recall Council Member Paul Krekorian (photo above) missed the target of more than 18,000 signatures needed to be included on the November election ballot but activists say the effort has launched a wave of activism throughout the city. 

“We knew going into this that it would be extremely difficult to amass the more than 18,000 signatures needed to get the recall on the ballot,” says a spokesperson for the recall group. “We did not raise campaign funds; we did not hire lobbyists. This was strictly a grassroots endeavor.” 

The spokesperson continues, “We can assure Mr. Krekorian that substantially more than the four people he so arrogantly conjectured want him out of office. We absolutely know that the signatures for his recall are out there; we are simply understaffed and unable to collect them.” 

“The sole reason the required amount of signatures were not met was simple. We just did not have enough bodies to collect them,” shares the spokesperson. “We did learn from the experience. We believe everyone should have the experience of circulating a petition at some point in their lives. You get a real take on people. We learned more about Krekorian and have more proof of his special interests than when we started. It was difficult when we started to keep the statement of reasons to 300 words or less.”

Although the recall will not appear on the ballot, the spokesperson for the group shares that the effort was a success. “We helped other council districts with the recall process, connecting with other council districts, which allowed them to organize their efforts. We reminded so many that they had to right to file, that we have the choice to succumb to the unacceptable corruption or to do something. We shared a great deal of evidence so many people’s experiences, all of which had come to the same conclusion.” 

What’s next for the group? “We are organizing for a bigger plan of action,” shares the spokesperson. There’s nothing in the Election Code that prevents us from filing another one. This was a good trial and run and we are just getting started.” 

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

-cw

LEARNING FROM THE PAST-Are Angelenos the new Mayans? Historians relate how the Mayans and their great cities just disappeared. Of course, Mayans who are still living in Central America would dispute the idea that they aren’t here, but I am talking about the demise of their great cities in the 8^th and 9^th centuries. Read this piece by Joseph Stromberg on August 23, 2012 on Smithsonian.com, “Why Did the Mayan Civilization Collapse? A New Study Points to Climate Change.” 

When we look closer to the Mayan collapse, we see that the entire civilization did not disappear, but rather certain cities collapsed. Thus, maybe we Angelenos have something to learn from the Mayans. If Los Angeles slips to a 3^rd, 4^th or 5^th rate city, urban areas like South Texas, Richmond Virginia and Phoenix will continue to thrive. But if one lived in a great Mayan city, its demise would not be palatable because others prospered. 

We are certain that Mayan cities like Tikal in today’s Guatemala did not have a CityWatch to publish articles warning of the forces which were dooming the city. If Tikal had TikalWatch, we imagine that the leaders of Tikal would have ignored its prognostications. That’s what rulers do. 

Although I have not polled them, I think that the common impetus for CityWatch contributors is to make Los Angeles a better place to live. Such a desire leads them to agitate against decisions which are harming the city and to promote programs to improve the city. Eliminating the negative and accentuating the positive make for a healthy society. 

Here are some trends reported in CityWatch, a couple of which correlate with the fall of Tikal. 

(1) Population Density--The rulers thought population density meant greater wealth as they had more subjects, and thus, they appeared deaf to the downside of too many people in too small an area. The primary support which Tikal’s population needed was food, but as the population became concentrated near the great central ceremonial temples, the clearing of vast acreage extended far into the forests. As a result, the deforestation reduced precipitation, which reduced the crops, which lead to more deforestation in an endeavor to grow more food. 

Meanwhile the rulers wanted a larger population as a considerable portion of their wealth came from trade and that required tradesmen. 

Because the rulers concentrated the population around the ceremonial centers, they needed to build more temples which required the burning of vast acreage of trees. Their palaces and public buildings required prodigious amounts of wood for the fires to make the lime plaster for construction. That building mania not only attracted too many people into small geographic areas, it also accelerated the deforestation. 

We see a general parallel with Los Angeles, where the wealthy want to concentrate the real estate wealth in The Basin with extremely dense office complexes like Bunker Hill, DTLA and Century City, but the social costs of supporting these modern temples overburdens society. 

Bunker Hill was constructed somewhat similarly to Tikal – through the forced participation of the citizenry. The Community Redevelopment Agency [CRA] was behind Bunker Hill as private investment houses did not see it as a financially sound project. Due to the CRA’s power, the office towers on Bunker Hill did not have to pay any incremental property taxes. That is not as harsh as whipping Angelenos to carry away millions of tons of bags of dirt on their shoulders, but the loss of tax revenues was the same as taking between $700 million and $1 billion out of Angelenos’ bank accounts. We had to pay for all the city services, while the billionaire developers paid zilch. 

While the few men who owned Bunker Hill became vastly wealthy, everyone else in Los Angeles suffered due to our infamous traffic congestion. If LA’s rulers had ignored the real estate developers and had allowed businesses to follow people as they moved away from The Basin, LA would be decentralized. We would have as many cars going and coming, but without our rush hour traffic jams as tens of thousands of people would not be trying to get to the same place at the same time. 

(2) Response to Drought --Another similarity between Tikal and LA is that nature starts droughts but men make them worse. As mentioned, Tikal continued to densify its population which increased the need to cut down more trees to grow more food and to burn more wood to create the lime plaster for their buildings. 

It is common for cultures to perpetuate destructive trends. One reason is that those who are in power usually gained power due to the current way of doing things and their personal power depends upon the city’s modus operandi not changing. That seems to be the mentality of Los Angeles. 

After WW II, hordes of people descended upon Los Angeles as a form of heaven on earth. This influx made real estate developers king and they knew how to turn the tide to their financial benefit. Los Angeles’s landmark study in 1915 warned Angelenos not to allow developers to retard the spread of business and industry, but rather to allow business and industry to follow the people as they moved to the periphery. 

Rather than learn from past mistakes, the City has tripled down on the densification of Hollywood. Not surprisingly its crime rate continues to escalate as Councilmember-Mayor Garcetti pushes the destruction of rent-controlled apartments and more mixed-use projects into the Los Feliz area. Did the rulers of Tikal order more slashing and burning of the forests in the face of evidence that aggrandizing Tikal was leading to its demise? 

(3) Tikal’s People Moved Away--When the Mayan trade routes shifted and business opportunities followed to towns near the sea, people left the great inland Mayan cities. Life was already becoming too arduous due to the population density of Tikal. The demand of rulers for more wealth and the rising cost of food and housing was making Tikal unsustainable in light of better conditions elsewhere. 

Likewise, for over 15 years our City’s rulers have ignored the health of our port, while the Panama Canal has been widened and shipping more easily goes to the Gulf of Mexico – near Texas where many former Californians now live. If the City had not focused on destroying rent-controlled homes and over-constructing luxury apartments for the last decade and a half, we might have made wiser plans for the port and its workers. Drastically escalating the cost of living for port workers and dissing San Pedro was not a wise policy. 

Did Tikal’s rulers ignore the emigration when it started? Did they unknowingly accelerate it? We know that Los Angeles’ rulers are both ignoring and accelerating the loss of our more productive work force. 

The USC Sol Price Institute for Public Policy has told us that the great population influx into Los Angeles is over. Other demographers have documented that Los Angeles is losing people. The only reason the population rises is that births exceed deaths and the net population exodus. Newborns are a burden on society for 18 to 23 years. The portion of the population which we need to bear the cost to repair our decayed infrastructure is the very segment which is leaving Los Angeles. 

Demographic patterns do not stop because City Halls turns a blind eye. Twice a week CityWatch explains not only the factors which are harming Los Angeles, but the measures needed to improve LA. 

My pet proposal to reverse LA’s decline is to stop the corrupt vote-trading scam where every councilmember agrees to never vote No on another councilmember’s construction projects. The vote trading deal turns Los Angeles into 15 fiefdoms – or, you could say, LA is more like15 wards that extend “mob courtesy” to each other.

(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.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.