LOS ANGELES

GUEST COMMENTARY—(George Hofstetter’s column was written prior to former Sheriff Baca’s Monday appearance before Judge Percy Anderson … and proved to be prophetic. Judge Anderson threw out Baca’s plea deal saying that six months in jail was not enough.)  The medical diagnosis that former Sheriff Lee Baca is in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease is unfortunate, and we sympathize with him and his family. 

Some may claim justice was achieved when Mr. Baca pleaded guilty  in February to lying to FBI agents and federal prosecutors investigating inmate abuse at the Men's Central Jail. However, the reality is that his maximum sentence under the plea is a slap on the wrist and he may serve no time at all when he is formally sentenced by U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson on July 18. 

What should not be forgotten is that while Mr. Baca admitted his guilt, he also worked out a plea deal to avoid testifying under oath in any proceeding regarding his actions. As I have said before, ALADS does not celebrate the fact that the person the voters of Los Angeles County elected to lead our department has now been convicted of a federal crime. This conviction is a bitter lesson the current department leadership must absorb and overcome. 

While Mr. Baca's sentence will be the topic of the day, our focus and concern are for the deputy sheriffs who became mired in Baca's scandals. We remain disappointed by the sentences that were handed down to deputies in the past year for crimes relating to the Mr. Baca's jail scandal. These deputies and their families have already been punished, far more harshly than Mr. Baca. We believe the sentences handed down in those cases should have at least been proportional to the sentence Mr. Baca is facing.     

Justice requires that those who directed criminal conduct should not be the least punished. Mr. Baca's plea deal calls for a maximum of six months, which pales in comparison to the 18 to 41-month prison terms lower level personal are facing.  

Judge Anderson still must approve Mr. Baca's plea agreement and ALADS hopes federal prosecutors will revisit all of the sentencing that was handed out to the deputies who were following the directions given to them by Mr. Baca's leadership. 

Rank-and-file deputies are determined by our daily actions on the job, to show the public that the crimes committed by former department executives reflect only upon those executives and their leadership failures. We are not going to let the sins of former managers define our deputies, as that would not be an accurate representation of the honesty, hard work and integrity ALADS members and their co-workers exemplify every day. 

As we wait to hear Judge Anderson's decision in Mr. Baca's sentencing, we are confident the department's current leadership will ensure the failures of their predecessors will not define how we go forward from here.

(George Hofstetter is President of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. ALADS is the collective bargaining agent and represents more than 8,200 deputy sheriffs and district attorney investigators working in Los Angeles County.  George can be contacted at [email protected].) Photo: AP. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams

LATINO PERSPECTIVE--In Los Angeles County the question is not whether a major disaster will happen, but when. Experts expect an earthquake measuring 7.0 or greater in the next 30 years. The area is prone to wildfires, floods, and other natural disasters. Infectious disease outbreaks and terrorist attacks are also possible. 

Though aware of the risks, less than half of the population is prepared for such emergencies. Surveys show Hispanic communities are least prepared of all. 

VOICES FROM THE SQUARE--Is there really something wrong with Watts? Or have we just taught ourselves to think that way? I grew up in Watts, and for as long as I can remember I have been hearing negative stories about the community from family, friends, and the people I knew. At a very early age I learned that the crime rate was high, that the neighborhood was drug-infested, that the schools were hopeless, and that Watts was home to many ills. 

I heard so much about its dangers that I planned my life around avoiding them. The safest way to live, I figured, was to focus on my education to protect myself—with the expectation that I might one day leave. I spent most of my youth indoors reading and writing, instead of playing outside with the other children. 

I must admit that, while I never challenged Watts’ reputation as a kid, I was curious about where it came from. Watts had its problems, but it never felt half as bad in the experiencing as in the telling. And I never felt fearful in the way that people expected me to be. 

As I got older, it bothered me that when people who didn’t live in Watts talked about the community, they always seemed to talk about the 1965 Watts Riots. The fact that this is still true more than 50 years later, in 2016, seems bizarre, given how neighborhoods change and how few of the people who were there are still here. 

As I studied journalism and learned to write, I decided I had the power to change how people thought about Watts. Three years ago, having entered my mid-20s, I started to publish essays about Watts. I didn’t shrink from Watts’ problems, but I also wrote about my life and family and the joys of it.

One essay I wrote for Zócalo Public Square in 2014 became a sensation. In it, I praised Watts for offering a lot of institutions to help young parents and kids, but I wondered why it didn’t offer what I needed as a young, childless college student who was also working. I couldn’t print out an essay or get college-related advice anywhere in Watts. I closed the piece by suggesting that Watts needed a local neighborhood center with computers and guidance counselors who can help people who are trying to get ahead. 

I was especially frustrated because, with every passing day, the distance grew between Watts’ bad reputation and its improving reality. 

The essay was also published in Time magazine and became so popular that reporters started calling to interview me. Of course, many of them were preparing pieces in advance of the 50th anniversary of the Watts Riots. NBC included me in their special on the anniversary. I used every opportunity to talk about the virtues of the community, the ways it had changed, and the need to improve some of the statistics around poverty that fuel our reputation. 

I was proud of my work and glad for the attention, but for some reason, it didn’t feel right. I took a hiatus from writing articles to continue my schooling and work while I thought about why I felt unsettled. Was I approaching the story of changing Watts’ reputation wrongly? Had I not done enough? 

I was especially frustrated because, with every passing day, the distance grew between Watts’ bad reputation and its improving reality. Schools were getting better, crime and violence were even less common, and there were all kinds of fairs and programs in the community that seemed to lead to people getting jobs and health care. 

I didn’t have to go far to see this. Two impressive developments had launched within walking distance of my home. Last year, a College Track program opened in Watts, helping high school students enter college and also working with them so they can successfully complete their degrees. The second development came this January when chefs Roy Choi and Daniel Patterson opened a much-needed restaurant down the street from me and it quickly became a favorite among people in the neighborhood.

Things were looking up for Watts, and for me. I even received a letter in the mail giving me permission to use an old community recreational room to jumpstart my own resource center—exactly like the one I envisioned in my Zócalo article.  

Pedestrian bridge over Blue Line tracks, Watts. 

But I was less than thrilled -- Watts’ reputation still wasn’t moving as fast as Watts. 

Then one day, I had a conversation with my neighbor for an article I was planning to write to end my self-imposed sabbatical. He had lived in Watts for as long as I could remember and was very popular in the neighborhood. I asked him what he thought of all the improvements in Watts, and his reply really hit me: “To be real with you, I just lay my head there. I’m like most people, I don’t really pay attention to that stuff.”

I thought this was funny at first. But then I thought about it some more, and some more after that, and it hit me. He was deeply right. 

I’m glad for the changes, but they didn’t really mean that much to me, or my own experience of Watts. Because Watts was never to me anything like the place people think it was. And if it didn’t really matter to him or matter to me -- we had built lives here -- why was I worrying so much about its reputation? 

My problem was mine, not Watts’. Why was I making myself unhappy worrying about a reputational problem that wasn’t in my power to fix? 

Watts is a fine place, with problems and virtues like other places; I’m proud to live here and I value it for what it’s given me. After all, hadn’t I learned the value of education here in Watts, sometimes from the same people who taught me about Watts’ ills? I have more positive to say about this place than negative (and I’m very grateful to see more and more positive things blooming here). And now that I’ve allowed myself to be happy about Watts, my goals feel even clearer. I won’t stay in my house, and I’m going to go outside and get my resource center up and running. 

You can think what you want about Watts. I’m too busy enjoying my neighborhood to care.

(Shanice Joseph, a journalist and student, lives in Watts. This essay is part of South Los Angeles: Can the Site of America's Worst Modern Riots Save an Entire City?, a special project of Zócalo Public Square and The California Wellness Foundation.) Photos by Steve Hymon. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

TRANSIT TALK-I’m home again, for a few minutes at least. Hey, cut me some slack; have you ever heard of snow and ice? It’s summer and to fully appreciate the places I’ve been, this is the best time of the year to be there. 

As usually happens when I spend time soaking up the energy of great cities, I feel enriched and inspired to bring some of those lessons home to Los Angeles. My latest trip took me to New York, Chicago and Madison, Wisconsin. And all three cities get a shout out for re-envisioning and making great things happen in their streets, open spaces or transit. 

What New York has done with its Hudson River waterfront and extension of the 7 Train west to the Hudson Yards  is legendary, and Madison is practically Mecca to a bike rider. 

Away from Los Angeles, It was a week of contrasts, a chance to scope out the most expensive transit improvement -- the Calatrava station at New York’s World Trade Center site -- and the most basic of massive domestic urban transit systems, Chicago’s seemingly ubiquitous L. 

My biggest shout out goes to the much maligned city of Chicago. Why do people hate on Chicago? For all that city’s violent crime, failing schools and missteps of its tone deaf mayor, Chicago is awesome, to use a word I can’t believe I just uttered, given my age. 

Between some of the world’s finest urban architecture, beautiful parks, great transit and bike share, terrific food and music, vibrant neighborhoods and a lake the size of an ocean, I’ll take it. 

In light of the terrible news of the past two weeks, how great it is to have something homegrown and American Made to celebrate. 

Whoever would have thought we would live to see the same sort of shameful attacks on the Black Lives Matter movement that plagued this country back in 1968? 

Attention No Faux News and you other haters: a disciplined civil disobedience movement à la SNCC and Dr. King himself did not murder five police officers in Dallas. RIP the officers as well as Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. We are better as a country than the side of things we have seen as of late. 

But let’s get back to Chicago. Won’t you please come to Chicago?  

I remember that it gets cold in the Windy City, as in really cold, but the views south from the Lincoln Park Nature Boardwalk and north and west from The Field Museum and Adler Planetarium in Grant Park are breathtaking urban landscapes (photo above) that rival anything one finds on either coast. 

Given the week’s news, I had second thoughts about leaving behind bucolic Madison, my free summer Bcycle bikeshare membership and chair near the stage on The Terrace at the University of Wisconsin Memorial Union. The brats and beer and open mic night on Lake Mendota alone almost justified the out-of-state tuition at one of the Country’s finest public (and private) universities. And that’s even after years of Scott Walker’s shameful efforts to eviscerate The Wisconsin Ideal.  

Though I was sorry to miss the opening day of Bike Metro, LA’s new bikeshare program, Bcycle, Madison’s protected bike lanes and its lakeside paths helped me appreciate the significance of bikeshare’s arrival in Los Angeles as nothing short of transformational. It’s a shot in the arm for the growing chorus of support for complete streets in Southern California. 

After the time I spent in Madison, Chicago beckoned me. The “express” Van Galder bus from Madison hit a traffic wall around Austin and Cicero. But that was okay for me as there were CTA Blue Line tracks running down the middle of the Eisenhower Expressway. Sure, the train line is not pretty and standing on those platforms in the winter must be brutal, but let’s focus on the positive; the line exists and offers functional, frequent 24/7 transit to thousands of daily riders. 

In spite of Chicago’s traffic, reminiscent of any hour on the 5, 405, 10, 110, 605, 710 (need I go on?) we eventually made it to The Loop where the real fun started at Chicago’s Union Station. A walk/architectural tour through The Loop of the big shouldered city and along the Chicago River (with kayakers!) never disappoints. 

With the quiet Expo Line to Santa Monica in mind, I have a soft spot in my heart for the noisy, gritty L, a largely bare bones urban transit system that rivals New York’s bursting at the seams behemoth. If Chicago was building the L today, it would never get its basic design past the public and the Federal Transit Administration. But there it is, in all its Loop-centric glory, taking riders nearly everywhere in the sprawling city. 

All over Chicago, I saw plenty of rust and the lines are pretty noisy at times. But, assuming the tracks and trains are safe, to an inveterate transit fan, the rattles and rust are small prices to pay for the frequency that we can only dream of for our own LA Metro. 

For a “city junkie,” there is almost nothing like riding the L through The Loop and out into Chicago’s vibrant neighborhoods. 

On the active transportation front, Chicago’s robust Divvy bikeshare program is super popular, especially near the Lake and parks, making it hard to find a bike at some of the stations. 

The takeaway for LA is: build out our transit fast and within budget and give Angelenos the frequency they need and the system will land discretionary riders who don’t even think about driving. This is what LA Metro’s November Ballot Initiative is all about and why we need to vote for it early and often as they would in Chicago. 

Just don’t get me started about the fact that Chicago’s Blue Line goes all the way to O’Hare, not just nearby, requiring a second ride. 

Since I probably sound like a PR flack for Chicago, I should add that I saw some annoying things there like Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s name on the sign at Bixler Playlot Park in Hyde Park, as if Rahm paid for the playground himself. 

In LA, of course, we would never put the name of a living County Supervisor on the name of a regional park. Never! Right? 

And I am not so nearsighted that I missed the resilient blight and crime that plagues much of Chiraq’s South Side and West Side. 

But in Chicago, like in New York, I also saw a vibrant city where races mix, at least on the L and in the street and parks along the Lake. 

LA fascinates me because its density and clash of dreams and cultures creates a built environment that is greater than the sum of its parts. Our cousins in Chicago and Madison and New York are also doing great things that can teach us a thing or two about how to build and rebuild cities that work. 

Now let’s get out and vote. 

(Joel Epstein is a senior advisor to companies, law firms, foundations and public initiatives on communications strategy, corporate social responsibility (CSR), recruiting and outreach. He is a contributor to CityWatch and can be contacted at [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

THE CITY-All cultures have death rituals. America’s is familiar to all. We are shocked when people are killed. Yes, shocked! It hasn’t happened in, well, maybe a few weeks. And we’re shocked that such a thing can happen in America. 

On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen guns down 49 people inside a gay night club and less than a month later, on July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson guns down five police officers in Dallas. In between, we had daily murders across the nation including what appears to be two executions by police officers – victims Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. 

Out come the votive candles, the tears, the wailing, the recriminations – oh, it is all so well scripted. We have to hurry up and finish our death ritual over the Dallas police death because in our predatory violent culture, the next mass murder is in the making. 

Americans need to take stock of their culture and admit some things to themselves.

(1) We live in a violent predatory culture. 

(2) We love our violent predatory culture. 

(3) We have no intention of changing our violent predatory culture. 

The habitual murders reflect our collective consciousness. Other countries don’t have similar violence, but then they’re pussies. Just ask Donald Trump. Just ask the NRA which insists that the answer to gun violence is more gun violence. Who agrees with the NRA? The United States Congress. Yes, we ourselves and the culture which we have fashioned for ourselves are the problem. 

Gun control, however, is a silly place to start. No predatory culture will give up its best weapon to kill other people. We cannot even stop insane people and terrorists from buying guns. Besides, railing against too many guns is merely one obligatory part of the Death Ritual. 

As long as we support a predatory culture where the wealthy rape the poor, gun violence will be with us every day, 365 days per year. 

What is a predatory culture and how do we know we live in one? 

If your country allows a handful of Wall Street investment bankers crash the world economy and your President’s response is to give them trillions of dollars, you live in a predatory country. 

If your country locks up more people for longer periods of time than any other industrialized nation, you live in a predatory country. 

If your country believes that adequate health care is a privilege for the wealthy, you live in a predatory county. 

If 60% of the people in your country think the death penalty is a good thing, you live in a predatory country. 

If you live in a city which destroys 20,000 rent-controlled apartments and then proposes to give $1.2 billion to the millionaires who tore down the poor people’s homes, you live in a predatory city. 

Recently, we saw the LA City Council once again unanimously approve the destruction of poor people homes so that the Cherokee Apartments could be turned into a boutique hotel. 

Right now Councilmember Krekorian, recently famous for his needless destruction of Marilyn Monroe’s Valley Village home (photo above), is now showing more of his sadistic streak with the demolition of more Valley Village homes at the intersection of Hermitage and Weddington. 

Let’s be very clear about this project. It will demolish long time Valley Village homes in order to make way for tax shelters for the rich and famous. Few Angelenos have heard about this most recent scam where established homes are destroyed, and in their place, we have In-Fill projects of so-called single family homes (small lot subdivisions), which are nothing more than apartments constructed on top of garages. 

The finances behind these frauds took a while to reveal itself. Since Wall Street has soured on the glut of large apartment complexes in Los Angeles, Garcetti, Krekorian, O’Farrell and others have devised a new scam. They still construct apartments, but they call them Small Lot development so that each apartment is treated as if it were a single family home. This charade allows each apartment to be sold individually as a tax shelter. 

The key to a tax shelter is that it loses money. That loss is beneficial to millionaires who need write-offs against profits elsewhere in their portfolios. An entire apartment complex is too large and apartments may not be legally sold as separate entities. Thus, we have the new scam, i.e. the apartments are designed to be standing units so that they can be sold to non-investors who need tax write offs. 

Thus, Krekorian’s plan is based on the sadistic impulse to destroy people’s homes so that his buddies can build tax shelters for the world’s wealthy. 

In our predatory culture, we see nothing wrong with that. Angelenos do not care that their City Hall is crimogenic and the LA City Council is run as a criminal enterprise.  If we will not stop Garcetti’s rampage on the poor after 20,000 rent-controlled units were destroyed, if we will not stop O’Farrell as he rewards the Cherokee Hotel for making the elderly, disabled and poor into the homeless, if we will not stop Krekorian in his ravaging of Valley Village, then we are the supporters of the predatory culture which routinely gives rise to these mass murders. 

Mark your calendars. The next mass murder has been penciled in for around August 10̀-20th, during which time, LA will have made a hundred or so more people homeless. 

Or we could reject the City’s sadistic predatory culture which daily destroys more of our homes, making more Angelenos homeless. 

We can Choose Life or continue the American Death Ritual.

(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.) Graphic credit: LA Curbed. Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EXPOSED—Want to know who has the most to gain/lose in politics? Follow the money. MapLight has done that for us on California’s ballot measures. Who’s ‘for’ the legalization of pot? Who’s against it? Keep reading.

1 — There are 17 measures that have qualified for California’s November ballot, covering everything from death and taxes to sex, drugs, and guns.

2 — Initiative campaigns have already raised about $185 million.

3 — The biggest spender so far is the pharmaceutical industry. It has contributed $70 million — or 38 percent of all the money raised for ballot measures so far — to fight Proposition 61, which would limit the prices state agencies pay for prescription drugs.

4 — Unions, school administrators, and the California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems have given $19 million to the campaign for Proposition 55, which would extend an income tax increase on people earning more than $250,000 a year.

5 — Tom Steyer, a billionaire and possible Democratic contender for governor in 2018, has contributed $1 million to support Proposition 56. The measure would increase the cigarette tax by $2 per pack.

6 — Some big names in Silicon Valley, including Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Paul Graham of Y Combinator, and Marc Benioff of Salesforce have given money to support Proposition 62, a measure that would repeal the death penalty and replace it with life in prison without the possibility of parole.

7 — A competing measure, Proposition 66 is aimed at eliminating delays in carrying out the death penalty by imposing time limits on legal reviews of capital convictions. It has the support of law enforcement groups.

8 — Supporters of Proposition 64, a measure to legalize marijuana, have raised over $7 million. Napster founder Sean Parker has contributed about $2.8 million.

9 — The committee opposed to legalizing pot, the Coalition for Responsible Drug Policies, Sponsored by California Public Safety Institute, has raised $141,000.

10 — A measure requiring actors in adult films to wear condoms, Proposition 60, has raised more than $1.6 million from its only financial supporter, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

Methodology:
MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to the ballot measure committees associated with California’s November 2016 ballot measures. All numbers are based on latest data made available by the California Secretary of State as of July 7, 2016.

(Bret Hendry is the Communications Manager at MapLight.) 

-cw

CALWATCHDOG--New polling and a surprise endorsement light up Loretta Sanchez’s quest for the U.S. Senate — but both also illustrate the challenges ahead. 

Sanchez — a Democratic congresswoman from Orange County — is hoping to cobble together enough votes from a mix of Latinos, Republicans, independents and Democrats to carry her past Democratic Attorney General Kamala Harris, the frontrunner. 

Harris won first place in the June primary by a wide margin — 40 percent to 19 percent — with the vote split between 34 candidates. Polling released Friday gives a clearer picture of how the two candidates stack up head to head, showing Harris in a comfortable, yet surmountable, lead.

And while the polling suggests Sanchez still faces significant difficulties winning over Republicans, Hugh Hewitt, a popular conservative radio host from Orange County, endorsed her on his show on Thursday, giving Sanchez her second high-profile Republican endorsement since the primary. 

POLLING--To win, Sanchez will likely need around a third of Democrats, the vast majority of Latinos and more than half of independents and Republicans to cast their ballots for her. 

A Field Poll released Friday showed Harris with a 15-point lead (39 percent to 24 percent). The good news for Sanchez was that 22 percent of respondents were undecided, the bad news was that 15 percent — a large portion of which were Republicans — said they’d vote for neither. 

Harris led among voters in nearly every category, including among Republicans, independents and Southern California voters (Harris is from the Bay Area). 

Sanchez, however, had a strong lead among Latinos, a nice lead among voters ages 18 to 39, and a slight lead among voters making less than $40,000 annually. 

Republicans--Perhaps the most troubling data point for Sanchez was the 31 percent of Republicans who said they wouldn’t vote in the Senate race, essentially saying they would just skip over that race on the ballot without one of their own to choose from. 

Mike Madrid, a Republican consultant who specializes in Latino issues, said he doubted the Republican undervote will be as “significant as other Democrat demographics” and believes Sanchez has a chance to win in November. 

“I think there’s a very real shot,” Madrid said. “Difficult, certainly; but absolutely possible.” 

Fragile coalition--Sanchez walks a fine line in appealing to Latinos and Republicans, as the former is increasingly dissatisfied with the latter. 

And she can’t veer too far to the right and hope to win a large chunk of Democrats or vice versa. After all, Sanchez is still a partisan Democrat and has strong support from Democratic lawmakers and constituencies, including unions.  

While some Republican insiders have reached out to Sanchez, introducing her to donors and voters behind closed doors, few are willing to make overt displays of support. 

Endorsements--Republicans like Hewitt who have come out in support of Sanchez give cover to other Republicans who may have a tough time voting for a Democrat by finding her to be the moderate candidate, or at least the lesser of two evils. 

The Libertarian-leaning Orange County Register Editorial Board endorsed Sanchez during the primary (while Republicans were still in the race), primarily for voting against the Iraq War in 2003, for voting against the PATRIOT ACT (which expanded the federal government’s use of surveillance against U.S. citizens), and for opposing the 2008 bank bailout. 

Hewitt called her the more “moderate” of the two candidates and said he would occasionally find consensus with Sanchez in military and defense issues — Sanchez sits on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee.  

“You and I are not going to agree a lot, but occasionally, we’re going to agree on Armed Services and some Defense appropriation issues,” Hewitt told Sanchez on air Thursday. “I’m not going to agree with your opponent ever.” 

In June, Richard Riordan, the former Republican Mayor of Los Angeles, endorsed Sanchez for her opposition to the Iraq War and for her ability to work across the partisan aisle to pass legislation. 

Congressional Quarterly recently listed Sanchez as one of the 25 most influential women in Washington, for being a “debate shaper and swing vote.” For the majority of her nearly two decades in Congress, she’s been in the minority party, meaning most accomplishments have been made with an element of compromise. 

“I’ve known Loretta Sanchez for many years, she is tough and not afraid to take a stand on important issues,” Riordan said at the time. “(Sanchez) knows how to work with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.” 

Sanchez actually used to be a Republican, dating back to high school in Anaheim. But similar to Latinos today repulsed from the Republican Party by its presumptive presidential nominee, Sanchez switched when she heard former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan warn of the “illegal invasion” of Mexicans coming across the country’s southern border, according to the Los Angeles Times. 

Uphill climb--Even if Sanchez can unite behind her Republicans, Latinos, independents and leftover Democrats, she still faces an opponent in Harris who has statewide name recognition and the full backing of the Democratic establishment, which in California has so often proven to be enough.  

For every play she makes for one group, she risks alienating voters of another group. Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio said, for example, attacking Harris, the attorney general, as being soft on crime was a decent strategy, but risks losing appeal among progressives. 

And despite Sanchez’s moderate profile as a member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Caucus and her independent streak on larger issues, she still has a fairly liberal voting record in the House.

“It’s an uphill climb,” said Maviglio. “What credentials does Loretta Sanchez have to appeal to Republicans? She’s been a partisan Democrat in the House. Is she less liberal than Kamala Harris? Only by a hair. That’s not a convincing argument.”

(Matt Fleming writes for CalWatchdog … where this piece was first posted.)

-cw

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-The City Planning Commission hearing on amendments to the two citywide mansionization ordinances – the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance (BMO) and the Baseline Hillside Ordinance (BHO) -- took place on Thursday, July 14, 2016. To get a full report on what transpired, please open this link.  

If you are concerned about mansionization -- the hasty and often illegal demolition of smaller, less expensive houses to clear building pads for pricey, oversized, out-of-character McMansions -- then these amendments are the big one. In Los Angeles, the mansionization process began in the Beverly Grove neighborhood, where I live, over a decade ago, but has since spread over the entire city. Contractors have bulldozed thousands of well-priced, middle class homes to make way for a crowd with apparently with more money than taste. 

With plenty of City Council and City Planning Department support behind them, the investors, contractors, and realtors in the mansionization business have been able to neutralize six previous attempts to stop McMansions by smothering them in loopholes. As a result, there has not even been a blip in the number of affordable houses demolished and then replaced by extremely expensive, intrusive monster houses in more and more LA neighborhoods. 

In this relentless cycle of real estate speculation, the only areas able to protect neighborhood character and scale are about 30 Historical Preservation Overlay Zones (e.g. Hancock Park), several residential Specific Plans (e.g. Mount Washington), and four neighborhoods with Residential Floor Area Districts (e.g., Beverly Grove).

While important, these zoning overlay ordinances only shield small areas. They oil loud squeaky wheels so truly awful planning practices can roll through the rest of Los Angeles unperturbed by multiple anti-mansionization policies in adopted and approved city planning documents. 

While these local anti-mansionization ordinances cannot unring a bell, they can at least protect the remaining homes in a handful of neighborhoods. But that also means that the rest of Los Angeles will not have dependable protection against mansionization until the City Council adopts a strong, citywide anti-mansionization ordinance. The current BMO-BHO amendments could finally provide that protection, but it will be a knock down, drag out fight over the coming months. Many neighborhood David’s are already facing off against a small army of Philistines, who are in league with City Hall decision makers taken in by the mansionizers’ frequently repeated but always debunked talking points.  

Breaking news: The City Planning Department recently issued their staff report for the Thursday hearing, and it does have some good points: 

• It recommends reducing by-right FAR from 0.50 to 0.45 on R1 lots of less than 7,500 square feet. 

• It calls for the full elimination of the exemption for covered porches, patios, and breezeways. 

• It calls for public hearings for all waivers (10% Zoning Administrator Adjustments) decided by the Department of City Planning. 

But the staff report falls far short in other key ways: 

• In hundreds of public comments and letters, Angelinos living in “the flats” identified the exclusion of attached garages from a house’s floor area (a 400 square foot freebie for mansionizers) as the single most damaging loophole. Even the City Planning staff report concedes that this has been “one of the most requested changes” and that if included, it would encourage detached garages with driveways that “provide increased separation between houses.” We would also add that the elimination of this loophole results in smaller houses. 

• But city planners recommend keeping the exemption for attached garage space, even though the City Council expressly directed City Planning to eliminate all loopholes that promoted mansionization. 

• Communities in the hillsides that are covered by the Hillside Mansionization Ordinance asked, above all, that the City drop the 1,000 square foot floor area minimum for non-conforming lots and tighten grading and hauling allowances. 

But city planners recommend keeping the 1,000 square foot minimum, as well as excessive grading and hauling allowances. 

Communities with larger lots (RA, RS, and RE zones), such as Tarzana, first and foremost requested that the City eliminate the same square footage bonus loopholes in their zones that they removed in R1 zones. 

But the city planners recommended keeping these bonuses, asserting that larger lot sizes and smaller FARs “make these zones better able to accommodate” the bonuses/loopholes. The bigger question, why there should even be a secret (ministerial) process to enlarge houses above their initial by-right size without a public, discretionary process, was, of course, not asked and not answered. 

Finally, all LA neighborhoods repeatedly requested that City Hall keep the amended mansionization ordinances as short, straightforward, and enforceable as possible. They knew, from bitter first hand experience, that LA’s Department of Building and Safety cannot understand and/or will not enforce the most basic mansionization provisions, such as the required posting of demolition and construction permits. They know that anything exceeding a barebones mansionization ordinance will be easily gamed by the mansionizers. 

They also realized that the inclusion of new design features lifted from re:code LA, encroachment planes and side wall articulation, are nothing more than lipstick on a pig. These are complicated, hard-to-enforce design provisions whose rationale, camouflaging bloated houses, is a myth. They are no different than the existing loopholes that the Council ordered City Planning to eliminate from the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance because they promoted mansionization. The locals know these design gimmicks utterly failed over the past eight years, and they will not work if again forced upon LA’s neighborhoods. Like before, they are nothing more than a recipe for further mansionization pretending to be fancy architectural doodads.

The first draft of the current BMO/BHO amendments in October 2015 received over 600 responses, and the Planning Department reported that these comments favored tighter limits on McMansions by a margin of almost 4-to-1. The second draft drew over 1000 responses, and there is no reason to think that public sentiment suddenly changed in favor of loopholes, whether old or new. 

But the Planning Department’s summary of “the most representative comments” pairs every objection to its reinstatement of loopholes with an opposing comment, while leaving out any mention of relative frequency, the actual validity of claims and counter-claims, and the instructions of the City Council. 

At the hearing on Thursday, speculators and realtors were expected to be out in force. Some of them have a simple, short-term outlook based on making a quick buck, regardless of the consequences for other people. Others are simply so ignorant they have not noticed that the neighborhoods with the highest property values are those, like the HPOZ’s, that protect neighborhood character. Finally, others clothe their greed in long-winded architectural discourses that boil down to “wear shirts with vertical stripes if you want to appear thinner.”
NEXT STEPS: We all know what we need to do: Show up at the hearing!  And, after the hearing, submit testimony directly to the City Planning Department, the City Planning Commission, and the City Council. This way, your testimony will be contained in the official file forwarded to the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Committee (PLUM) for its public hearing on the same amendments. Plus, you can also present your testimony again at the PLUM hearing. These are the City of LA staff that you should contact. Remember to include CF 14-0656 in the subject line. 

City Planning Commission: [email protected]

City Council PLUM Committee: [email protected]

Tom Rothmann:   [email protected]

Nicholas Marrakech: [email protected]

Phyllis Nathanson:   [email protected] 

Niall Huffman: [email protected]

Another round of emailed public testimony will show support for meaningful reform of LA’s repeatedly flawed efforts to stop mansionization. 

For further information on the next stages in the adoption process, this website will have all the information you need.

(Dick Platkin is a former LA City Planner who reports on local planning issues for City Watch. He welcomes comment and corrections at [email protected]. He also thanks Shelley Wagers, who wrote an earlier version of this column.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW-Just days before the delegates arrive in Cleveland for the GOP convention and less than two weeks before the Democrats gather in Philadelphia, California officials have been busy certifying the over 8.5 million ballots cast last month. Voters and local election officials alike have been scratching their heads about confusing rules and overlapping that occurred during the primary voting process. 

Most complaints stem from the dissimilar rules governing both presidential and statewide elections. Primaries for state offices are open; voters can choose candidates across party lines. Rules for the presidential primary differ and are governed by the political party.

Independent (no party preference) voters were able to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary but were not permitted to vote in the GOP primary. Independent voters were required by the Democratic Party to use a designated “crossover” ballot which did not include a vote for the party’s governing committee. This special ballot was only presented to unaffiliated voters if they asked for it. 

Furthermore, local election officials were held to enforcing the rules – and procedures were inconsistent from county to county. Training for poll workers isn’t even consistent throughout the state. Activists have alleged that independent voters may not have had the chance to vote for Sanders. Election Day reports pointed out a number of “polling place flash points” where poll workers either gave the wrong advice or weren’t using the latest roster of registered voters. 

After there were some suspected uncounted provisional ballots in other states, Sanders supporters in California used social media to inform people to refuse provisional ballots. At the same time, election officials noted the state election law gives wide discretion to accept provisional ballots. Reports from Contra Costa County concluded eighty-eight percent of the county’s provisional ballots were counted. Eighty-seven percent of Los Angeles County’s over 268,000 provisional ballots were counted. 

In the days following the June 7 primary, more private citizens than usual were showing up to watch over the tallying of provisional ballots and in San Diego, social media activists accused election workers of changing provisional ballots. 

Snafus happened when voters showed up at different polling places than where they were registered and ended up mistakenly voting for down-ticket races for which they weren’t eligible to vote. In San Diego, workers redacted those particular votes with white correction tape, leaving in place the votes for president and U.S. Senate. In other counties, election workers were copying the voter’s choices to a clear ballot, similar to what happens with damaged ballots. An activist group in San Diego has filed a lawsuit claiming that the procedures followed to recount the required manual recount of one percent of the ballots were incorrect. 

Additional problems occurred when voters who don’t typically go to the polls were confused about their party affiliation. For example, some voters believed they were registered independents (who could receive provisional ballots for the presidential primary) but were, in reality, members of California’s American Independent Party. 

In Riverside County, allegations were levied that changes may have been tampered with in the state’s online registration portal to change part affiliation, charges Secretary of State Alex Padilla denies. 

Election changes in 2014 allow for completed vote-by-mail ballots to arrive as late as 72 hours after the polls close, provided they are postmarked on Election Day. This typically causes late counting in less populated counties. 

In elections with such a wide array of ballots by both party affiliation and language, as well as such large numbers of candidates like the 34 primary candidates for the U.S. Senate race in California, voting systems need to be updated. More money is needed to expand voter communications and to pay for mandated procedures to ensure fair, uniform elections and equal treatment of voters throughout the state.

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

JUST THE FACTS--I have been ranting and raving about the deteriorating conditions of our once proud City of Los Angeles neighborhoods for a number of months. Homeless are entrenched in many parts of our residential communities, pot holes exist on more roadways than I can count, severe traffic congestion is in all parts of the city with all the freeways in all directions jammed most times of each and every day until late evenings, graffiti is sprawled along business corridors, trash is spilling over trash cans at bus stops, and crime is increasing in all categories. 

Being a native of Los Angeles and living here for nearly 70 years, I know what our city used to look like and what it used to offer residents, business owners and visitors over the years. 

For the residents, there was affordable housing, good public schools for the children, good manufacturing jobs; auto, bicycle and motorcycle travel on well maintained roadways and relatively safe neighborhoods where people could walk on sidewalks that were even and without huge cracks to trip and fall without fear of being confronted by thugs, homeless living on the sidewalks and an assortment of conditions that turn a well - maintained city into a place that is in severe decay and neglect. 

It can all be turned around with strong, consistent and determined political leadership.   It happened in New York City when Rudy Giuliani was the mayor and the city was experiencing decay at an alarming rate. 

The police were given the tools to do their job and the public work crews were directed to clean up the mess. The transit line operators were tasked to clean the cars before they left the barn and all turned around in a short time. 

I don’t see that happening here in Los Angeles. While I know and respect Mayor Eric Garcetti, his management team is not connected with the task at hand. Homelessness is out of control and the only remedy from our city leaders is an increase in taxes and fees. They want us to put up over one billion dollars to remedy the situation. Money without a plan for how to spend it. 

There will surely be more city jobs created with more and more bureaucracy and costs to the tax payers. I say enough with the constant demand for more money to fix a problem that our city leaders let get out of control. 

The city leaders need to take some of the billions of dollars in our current budget to address this most serious situation. It is interesting that the city leaders let the situation get out of control and are now turning to the taxpayers to correct the situation they created and ignored for such a long period of time. 

The message here is simple. VOTE NO ON ANY AND ALL MEASURES ASKING FOR MORE OF YOUR MONEY TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM THE CITY LEADERS LET GET OUT OF CONTROL IN THE FIRST PLACE!

●●

TRAGEDY IN DALLAS--The attack on law enforcement rose to a new level when a crazed man assassinated five Dallas police officers and injured many others during a march protesting police shootings in other parts of the country. This tragedy illustrates just how dangerous police work has become. 

In Dallas, with a starting salary of $44,000 a year, it takes brave and courageous individuals to join a career where your life can end in an instant. Your family and friends will remember you each and every day while society moves on and returns back to normal in short time. 

Serving with the LAPD for nearly 50 years, I have lost partners and friends to the dangers of the job. With the grace of God, I remain here to remind you to show your appreciation when you encounter a member of law enforcement. They have a very dangerous job and it is not getting any easier. A friendly smile and wave goes a long way to express your appreciation for your police officers. 

If you are so inclined, when in a restaurant and see an officer on code 7 (Meal Break) think about picking up their tab. This gesture goes a long way in expressing your appreciation for our police. It is not about the person’s color or race with the officers it is about enforcing the law in a fair and professional manner. If you just comply with the officers directions, your encounter can be a pleasant one for both of you.  

(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

CO-EXISTENCE ALERT--I have 56 years’ experience with coyotes first hand. I am a college-educated, retired USDA Wildlife Specialist. I have lived among coyotes for a collective 210 days in remote locations in Arizona while collecting biological samples for the Center for Disease Control and Arizona Game and Fish Department. I have studied and pursued them in every way possible over these years. I have kept live coyotes on my property for the USDA for observation and urine collection for several years. And I’ve dealt with damaging and dangerous coyotes first hand and witnessed the death and the trauma they cause. 

I know coyotes. They do not belong in town, in your community, in your neighborhood, or in your back yard. These wild animals are dangerous. They are equivalent to “urban terrorists” as they invade the urban areas of America because they are there to kill – it’s their expertise. They are not cute little wild dogs, they are not a friendly wild animal, they are not your friend in anyway; they are dangerous. Anyone who tells you that you can co-exist with these dangerous wild animals is irresponsible and putting your life, your family’s life, your children, grandchildren, pets, and property in danger! 

Look closely at a few things they tell you to do to protect yourself from dangerous coyotes:

1. Secure your home to prevent unauthorized entry by coyotes – as you would to prevent burglars from entry. 

2. Never let your pets out into your very own back yard without supervision. You must police them. 

3. Watch your children closely at all times when they are outside -- guarding against coyotes as you would against criminals like kidnappers. Imagine seeing your child being eaten by a coyote. 

4. Secure all access to your home and buildings both above and below the foundation from unauthorized entry by coyotes. Again, like burglars and other criminals, they are thieves in the night. 

5. Never travel the same routes day in and day out -- change your pattern, like you would from a stalker or attacker. 

Let’s get real here, people! This dangerous wild animal is a trespasser. The coyote has proven to be a threat to humans, pets and property for decades. It is doing what criminals do, what stalkers do, and what terrorists do – and some would want you to learn to co-exist with them? Well then, let’s all learn to co-exist with muggers, rapists, stalkers, drunk drivers, and murders as well. After all, they have rights too. But do you really want to learn to live with a rattlesnake in the kitchen? 

According to some unrealistic and perhaps deranged people, rattlesnakes, killer bees, alligators, grizzly bears, cockroaches, and others have more rights to live anywhere they want than we do. If these creatures (like snakes) take up residence in your back yard or under your house (like skunks) or in your attic (like bats) – well, that is their right. 

Their proponents say, “We have moved in on them” … but they were there first! Poor misunderstood wild animals … you must “learn to live with it!” 

There is a reason that all across America there are no closed hunting seasons on coyotes. Many states do not even require hunting licenses to pursue coyotes. There are no bag limits on coyotes either. There is a reason that there have been bounties paid on killing coyotes for over 50 years. The state of Utah now pays a $50 bounty for each coyote killed. There is a reason that one federal agency has had a huge focus on controlling coyotes in America for over 100 years: coyotes are abundant. They cause a huge amount of personal property damage where ever they go. Coyotes are dangerous to humans, pets, and livestock and cause tens of thousands of dollars of damage each year in America. 

Everything I have stated here is simple to research and very easy to verify. The USDA has a fulltime well-staffed research center in Utah that studies coyotes every day. These are dangerous wild animals that must be monitored and controlled. Coyotes do not belong in your community, your neighborhood, or your back yard. And the so-called “coyote experts” seldom are that. Most have not even been alive for as long as I’ve been dealing directly with coyotes. 

Public officials encourage “co-existence” with coyotes because they don’t have the budget or the experience to deal with them. They just hope the problem goes away. But it won’t and if they were real experts they would know that. 

Activists like those who run Project Coyote have the single agenda of stopping all hunting in America -- and they want to start with the coyote. They want to raise money from you by giving you a false message with unrealistic claims about these dangerous animals. Much of what they claim is simply made up! 

I encourage all of you to take action like some other communities have. Green Valley, Arizona rose up and fought back against a single coyote that bit eight different adults. They killed this bad coyote and the attacks immediately stopped. Long Beach, California is fighting back by forming a citizens group to demand something be done about their increasing coyote problem. They found that the City of Long Beach has no budget for this control and the California Fish and Wildlife Department is doing basically nothing because they also have no budget for it. Printing up a few pamphlets will not stop the invasion and danger. 

So, what has caused this invasion? This terrorism? It is easy to figure. Across America, coyotes are showing up where they have not been in the past, looking for something to kill and eat on the roof tops of New York City, in the back yards of Pennsylvania, in downtown Chicago, and in many other similar locations. The expansion is due to the loss of rural habitat, reduction in hunters and the increasingly abundant amount of resources available in town. There is more water, more cover, and more trash to rummage through. There are pets to eat, plenty of cool shade, lots of food and most importantly, “no pressure” from other coyotes or people pursuing them. 

Urban America is a safe place for these dangerous wild animals. And it’s becoming even safer as misguided people try to “co-exist” with them. Do not fall for it. Fight back against this new urban terrorist! 

Other perspectives on urban coyotes 

• ‘Urban Coyotes: Learning to Coexist with Them’  

• ‘Coyote Shooting in Silver Lake: Is the Public Losing Patience with City Hall and Animal Services’ 

(James A. Schmidt is a retired USDA Wildlife Specialist.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EDITOR’S PICK--In Los Angeles, resistance to change at the neighborhood level has never been at more of a fever pitch than it is today. We have the massive effort behind the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, which seeks to curb large-scale development; we have the grassroots resistance to gentrification in Boyle Heights; and we have the curious case of the Silver Lake Reservoir. Presently a gaping muddy hole, the 96-acre reservoir can no longer be used for drinking water — but that hasn't stopped some residents from demanding it be refilled, despite the severe drought. 

The two-part reservoir was built in the early 1900s as an emergency water supply and was designed to be useful, not pretty. Yet the reservoir later became a sort of focal point of the upwardly mobile community.

"Many longtime residents think this is their lake," the reservoir keeper, Manuel Trujillo, once said, according to the application to make the reservoir a Historic-Cultural Monument. "The lake adds to the property values of the nearby homes. When the lake was drained in 1975 for some reconstruction, the
property values dipped."

In the wake of 9/11, the federal government mandated that all water supplies be kept underground. So in 2013, the the reservoir was taken offline. In the summer of 2015, it was drained so that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which owns the reservoir and surrounding land, could rebuild some pipes, sending drinking water to a new subterranean reservoir underneath Griffith Park. 

The reservoir was supposed to be refilled by the end of this year, but things are running a little behind.

Oh yeah, we're also in the middle of a really bad drought, which has led some to wonder aloud, why are we filling this thing up with water again? Water that no one will use, except to look at?

Surrounded by a chain-link fence topped with barbed wire, the reservoir is essentially a jail for water. Now that it won't be functioning as an actual reservoir, maybe it could put to an actual use? Like maybe a park? 

Once ideas such as these started percolating, Silver Lake residents started getting agitated. Not all of them, of course. Silver Lake Forward [[ http://silverlakeforward.com/ ]]   is pro-park; it has Moby on its side! Catherine Geanuracos, a co-founder of the group who lives in Silver Lake, says the group is calling for a new planning process to come up with the best use for the land.

"It’s a public asset that’s changing, and it seems like we could create something really amazing for the community," Geanuracos says.

But a far more vocal group, active in the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council, has formed, calling itself Refill Silver Lake Now. [[ http://refillsilverlakenow.org/ ]] From its website:

Refill Silver Lake Now is 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 L.A. 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.

Members of Refill Silver Lake Now turned out in force at a recent public meeting to discuss the future of the reservoir. They cheered when City Councilman David Ryu promised it would be at least partially filled next spring. And they lost their collective shit when Councilman Mitch O'Farrell suggested that maybe, just maybe, we should think about putting the land to better use than a dreary water jail. According to Curbed LA:

One thing’s for sure: Most of the residents who attended the meeting are not interested in a damn park! The loudest cheers of the evening came when a woman informed the officials at the meeting that Silver Lake did not want to hear about alternative uses for the reservoir — just a quick refill.

There was also nearly a riot when City Councilman Mitch O’Farrell raised the prospect of landscaping the path around the lake, making the mistake of comparing the project to Echo Park Lake and saying future public meetings would be a "marketplace of ideas." From the back of the room, one woman shouted, "It’s not a marketplace. It’s a community!"

"The people who were at that meeting were incredibly opinionated," Geanuracos says. "And they're entitled to their opinions. But that room wasn’t representative of the current population of Silver Lake, let alone the whole city."

It's not as if the reservoir doesn't already have some parklike elements. There's a much-loved jogging track, a basketball court, a dog park and, of course, the Silver Lake Meadow, which opened in 2011. There was a bit of resistance to the meadow, too – it only got the green light after officials agreed to make it a "passive space," meaning no dogs and no sports.

"We would be open to any discussions about beatification once the water’s in," says Jill Cordes, one of the co-founders of Refill Silver Lake Now. She says she's worried about a giant, gaping muddy hole siting around for years while landscape architects fiddle around with various plans.

One issue yet to be addressed: What kind of water will the DWP use to fill the hole with? The original plan called for drinking water, even though no one can drink from it. But drinking water is in demand right now. It's expensive.

The DWP could fill the reservoir with recycled water, but that would take a lot longer; it's unclear how long. 

"We’re willing, as a group, to potentially wait a month or two if it means we can be a shining example for using reclaimed water in Los Angeles," Cordes says. But she doesn't think the DWP can get it done that fast. In that case – well, the group is called Refill Silver Lake Now. 

Cordes also worries that any major enhancements to the reservoir would attract crowds. And traffic.

"Where would people park?" Cordes asks. "How would they get here? I don’t understand. Unless you made half the reservoir a parking lot. And who wants that?"

She adds: "This is a respite in the middle of a giant city. I don’t see why there's anything wrong with keeping it a nice tranquil spot."

Of course, the Silver Lake Reservoir is not owned by Silver Lake. It's owned by the DWP. It's public land. 

"This whole part of our city, not just the few surrounding blocks, use the meadow and use the walking track," Geanuracos says. "It’s an incredible resource for us already. And so it’s a really interesting question. Those people [who live here] are impacted more. But there’s also a potential huge benefit for the whole area."

(Hillel Aron writes for LA Weekly  … where this piece originated.)

-cw

VOX POP--Powerful City Hall lobbyists, who are popular hired guns among developers, raised a whopping $124,046 in the first quarter of 2016 for seven City Council members, one of whom is running for Los Angeles County supervisor. Lobbyists help developers bend the rules and get City Council approvals for zone changes, General Plan amendments and/or height district changes for gigantic development projects across LA.

In June, the city’s Ethics Commission released a quarterly lobbying report for the first quarter of 2016. It contains eye-popping figures that show City Hall lobbyists are raising king-sized cash for LA. politicians’ campaign chests and officeholder accounts. 

Council members Mike Bonin of District 11, Gil Cedillo of District 1, Mitch O’Farrell of District 13 and Joe Buscaino of District 15 each received lobbyist fundraising money for their 2017 re-election bids. Council member Mitchell Englander of District 12 received lobbyist campaign cash for his LA County supervisor run, and Council member Marqueece Harris-Dawson received lobbyist fundraising money for his 2015 campaign.

Nury Martinez of District 6 received lobbyist money for an “officeholder account,” as did Bonin, O’Farrell, Buscaino and Harris-Dawson. An officeholder account is a controversial slush fund used by City Council members to pay for expensive meals and travel.

The top five lobbyists firms to raise money for City Council members include, according to the Ethics Commission:

1. Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell — $20,848 for Mike Bonin’s 2017 campaign and $700 for Bonin’s 2013 officeholder account;
2. Benjamin Resnick — $20,848 for Bonin’s 2017 campaign and $700 for Bonin’s 2013 officeholder account;
3. Afriat Consulting Group — $7,300 for Gil Cedillo’s 2017 campaign, $4,700 for Mitch O’Farrell’s 2017 campaign and $4,450 for Nury Martinez’s 2013 officeholder account;
4. Englander Knabe and Allen — $4,700 for Mitch O’Farrell’s 2017 campaign and $700 for O’Farrell’s 2013 officeholder account, $3,300 for Bonin’s 2017 campaign and $1,400 for Bonin’s 2013 officeholder account, $2,900 for Mitchell Englander’s 2016 county supervisor campaign, $1,400 for Marqueece Harris-Dawson’s 2015 campaign and $700 for Joe Buscaino’s 2011 officeholder account;
5. M Advisors — $8,900 for Buscaino’s 2017 campaign.

All of these lobbyists have been hired by deep-pocketed developers to woo politicians and bureaucrats at LA City Hall.

Council member Bonin represents such neighborhoods as West Los Angeles, Venice, and Palms, all areas that developers have been looking to overbuild. In O’Farrell’s district, developers have been pushing controversial projects in Hollywood, Silver Lake, Elysian Valley and Echo Park.

And councilmen Gil Cedillo, Marqueece Harris-Dawson and Mitchell Englander are members of the powerful Planning and Land-Use Management Committee, which signs off on zone changes and General Plan amendments sought by lobbyists on the behalf of developers.

See a pattern here? Politicians get big money from developers and lobbyists, lobbyists rake in millions from developers, and developers make huge profits from the help of politicians and lobbyists. And the citizens get what? Traffic gridlock, unaffordable housing, outsized development that ruins our neighborhoods, gentrification and essentially screwed. 

But that’s how things work within LA City Hall’s broken planning and land-use system. Spread around huge sums in campaign contributions to City Council members, and win big favors in return. 

In addition to lobbyists raising major money for local politicians, the real estate industry has contributed at least $6 million to the campaign chests of LA politicians, according to Ethics Commission records.

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

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.) 

-cw

TAX TSUNAMI--The overburdening of taxpayers in the City of the Angels is a very, very real thing--except, of course, to the privileged, the disconnected, and the powerful interests tied to the majority of the City Council and Mayor who feel that our sales, parcel, utility, and other taxes are just not high enough.  More importantly, the perception and reality alike of how our taxes are being spent argues that Downtown is attacking its taxpaying residents. 

1) It's no secret that our taxes, when compared to other cities, counties, and states in the nation, are very high--and arguably either the highest or very close to it.  More taxes are acceptable when they're being spent well, but not acceptable when the past history of how they're being spent is poor. 

My CityWatch colleague Jack Humphreville isn't the only one decrying the billion-dollar homeless bond plan the City is trying to push this November.  We're being asked to pay more taxes for transportation, parks, educational facilities...yet again...but what is our past history of spending. 

And THEN City taxpayers get attacked AGAIN for being cruel and selfish.  To oppose this homeless measure is being conflated with not caring about the homeless--which itself is a cruel and selfish argument not against those who are questioning this initiative, but against those who are completely oblivious to the City of Los Angeles' horrible history on how its past homeless issues-related spending has gone. 

So City taxpayers have to endure being attacked both with more taxes, and then morally pummelled and bullied into spending more taxes--despite a horrible history on how they were spent in the past--and therefore get attacked again. 

2) Good planning, and good policies, and good representation, will lead to the acceptance of more taxes and new City initiatives...but the converse is certainly true as well.  Bad planning and policies and ignoring the voters/taxpayers won't sit well when they're being asked to do more...and more...and more...and more! 

One of the best reasons I support individuals like CD11 Councilmember Mike Bonin is that he takes his own credibility and representing the Westside very seriously...and it is certain that he will bridge the voters, the City workers, and developers into doing the right thing. 

It was Mike Bonin, and others, who are leading the fight to avoid LAX from smashing a few critical hundred feet into Westchester and threatening the safety, traffic and infrastructure of the entire region.  Others on the City Council caved in to the overreaching of LAX, some with better intentions than others--but poor Planning is poor Planning. 

But NO ONE wants, or will ever put up with, poor Planning--particularly when it's almost certainly illegal, threatens neighborhoods, the economy, and both the environmental safety and quality of life solely for the purpose of making a few very rich and connected individuals more rich. 

Everyone with a conscience and a brain wants affordable housing, transit-oriented development, and enhancement of our commercial corridors--but trashing neighborhoods to do that?  No--it's NOT acceptable. 

It's NOT acceptable on the Westside, the Eastside, in the Valley, or South Los Angeles. 

Whether it's an amazingly by-right project on Venice Blvd. in the Westside that is several stories higher than other buildings for miles around, and with fewer parking spaces than units, merely because the City of Los Angeles has grossly and immorally misinterpreted state affordable housing laws ... 

... or whether the gigantic and out-of-character Cumulus skyscraper in South/Mid-City Los Angeles is being promoted along the Expo Line near the La Cienega station... 

...illegal, immoral, environmentally-unsafe and neighborhood-destroying mega-projects are NOT acceptable to a City or County that voted for more transportation options to CATCH UP, NOT WORSEN traffic, and to IMPROVE, NOT DESTROY neighborhoods.   

3) Be they black, white, brown, or yellow taxpayers, NO ONE should be a slave to a Downtown Planning Politburo-like system gone amok.  And when the taxpayers and voters get stepped on too much, they'll have to face the Hobson's choice of either taking more abuse or screaming NO!!! to new tax initiatives just to make their elected leaders be heard. 

The Casden project was a horrible poison pill for Expo Line supporters in the Westside, and the Cumulus project was a horrible poison pill for Expo Line supporters in the Mid-City/South L.A. region.  

And "by-right" rules to the otherwise-venerable goals of affordable housing and transit-oriented development, but which establish projects and development that do anything BUT achieve those goals while making a few cruel and scurvy developers richer, is just plain WRONG. 

I am not the only transit advocate in agony over whether to promote Measure R-2 or not this November, because more sales taxes are needed to operations of mass transit, fixing our streets, and repairing our infrastructure--but "feeding the beast" is anything but acceptable. 

What is particularly sad is that the aforementioned Councilmember Mike Bonin, and former Santa Monica City Mayor Denny Zane have an EXCELLENT and VERY CREDIBLE record on past and planned-future spending of transportation funds, and on acknowledging what is and isn't real transit-oriented development. 

But they risk losing, and WE risk losing, a very necessary initiative (Measure R-2) if it will only result in empowering the developers and "the 1%" while disempowering the rest of us and consigning our City into a living hell...to which only the option of moving is available. 

To the Mayor, the City Council, the Board of Supervisors, and to our state and federal electeds: 

1) Stop attacking taxpayers with poorly-conceived and nontransparent spending initiatives, because they will threaten the ones that ARE well-conceived and transparent. 

2) Stop attacking taxpayers for being cruel and selfish when, in fact, they are anything BUT...although those doing the attacking are likely those who truly merit the monikers of "cruel" and "selfish". 

We have a City to save, and you're killing our ability to save it.

(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at  [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)

-cw

LA PROTEST WATCH--A sober New York Times headline last weekend described what many assume has been a dramatic change in fortune for Black Lives Matter, the de facto civil rights movement of the day. “Black Lives Matter Was Gaining Ground,” it read. “Then a Sniper Opened Fire.”

The story outlines how, since 2013, BLM has slowly but steadily built national support for its in-your-face protest tactics and its relentless message that African Americans have borne the brunt of police brutality, often fatally, for far too long. Against the odds, BLM and its larger critique of American racism have gone mainstream and become a de rigueur topic in circles ranging from celebrities to presidential hopefuls. The most recent fatal shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile by police in Baton Rouge, Louisiana,and suburban St. Paul, Minnesota, were among the most shocking and egregious of many such killings captured on camera in the last three years, including the high-profile shootings of Michael Brown and Tamir Rice.

These and other images were galvanizing the national conscience, much the same way as images of civil rights protesters being abused by police stunned the public in the ‘60s. But last week, when a black, military-trained sniper killed five Dallas policemen at the tail end of a peaceful BLM protest in that city, this national support allegedly stalled; in its place is a BLM backlash that has emboldened public figures like Rudy Guiliani to declare that by focusing exclusively on black lives, the organization is inherently racist. The question posed by the New York Times and other mainstream media is how, or even whether, BLM will survive.

The criticisms of BLM, especially accusations of racism, are not new. But the Dallas shootings instantly moved such criticism from the background to the fore, giving Guiliani and other pro-police types full license to characterize BLM as counterproductive and even dangerous—one pointed accusation is that in stoking black dissatisfaction, BLM is actually responsible for the deaths of the Dallas cops.

BLM activists have for their part rejected the backlash, as well as the narrative that their cause now hangs in the political balance. National protests against police violence have continued unabated, including in Los Angeles, where the rate of questionable shootings of black people by police is higher than in any other big city. The BLM backlash seems to have actually increased participation in protests. 

“Of course people who have power want to say what we’re doing is divisive, but what’s divisive is killing black people,” says Melina Abdullah, a key BLM organizer and professor of Pan African Studies at California State University, Los Angeles. “State-sanctioned violence is the issue.”

Abdullah adds that the group that convened on Sunday at Chuco’s Justice Center in Inglewood for a march numbered in the thousands; typically it would be about 200 people. She says the show of force speaks to the urgency of the cause of police reform and racial justice – an urgency that’s growing, not diminishing.

Akili, a fellow BLM activist and project coordinator for Corporate Accountability International, agrees with Abdullah that the Dallas shootings, tragic as they were, cannot obscure the real, deeply historical problems of inequality that have animated the movement from the beginning. “The two items are separate—the shooting in Dallas, and our demands for justice,” says Akili, who goes by one name. “These two things are not related, but we’re connecting them. That’s wrong. [Sniper] Micah Johnson was a deranged individual and we are not accountable for that. You can’t paint all black people with the same brush, but that happens all the time.” Especially when it comes to acts of violence.

Coincidentally, or appropriately, Los Angeles has become a hotbed of protest this past week. The Sunday night march in Inglewood shut down the 405 Freeway near LAX airport. On Tuesday, protesters were visibly angered by the Los Angeles Police Commission’s ruling that the 2015 fatal shooting of Redel Jones, a 30-year-old black woman who allegedly charged officers with a knife, was in policy. Jones was one of 36 people killed by the Los Angeles Police Department last year. After having swarmed City Hall, only to be refused entry, protesters are now enacting an “occupy” campaign; Abdullah says she and others will stay in the streets until LAPD chief Charlie Beck is fired. They will stay, she says, until that goal is achieved. No more negotiating.

It could very well be a long haul, with long odds for success. Abdullah is undeterred. “It’s summer,” she says. “I’ve got a lot of time on my hands.”

(Erin Aubry Kaplan is a Los Angeles journalist whose posts regularly appear on KCET’s SoCal Focus blog. Her book, Black Talk, Blue Thoughts and Walking the Color Line, is published by University Press of New England. This column was posted most recently at Capital and Main.) 

-cw

VOICES FROM THE SQUARE--There is more opportunity in South Los Angeles now.

You can see it in the houses, in the development, in the grocery stores finally arriving, in the people who—as I did several years ago—decided to stay. There’s a real sense of unity and possibility. It can feel a little (dare I say) like Brooklyn, with the renaissance in some neighborhoods, the sexy feel of the place. And we’re just a $5 Uber ride away from everything happening in downtown. Maybe I should stop here—I don’t want too many people to come to South LA.

But I also want to raise questions about the big things that haven’t changed. Who gets the money produced by the hard work and striving of people in South LA.? Who gets to decide how public money is invested to improve South LA. neighborhoods? And most of all, who gets to represent South LA.?

For now, the answer to those questions is: the same old Los Angeles establishment. South LA. doesn’t get to invest in itself, represent itself, and govern itself. One reason for this is that running for office in LA. costs a lot of money—and citywide interests with little sense of South LA. are the funders who can afford to participate in our political races.

South LA. has always been a pawn in games played by other people. There is a strong sense of identity among people here, but our bureaucrats and politicians have divided the place up so they can do as they wish. Some parts of South LA. are unincorporated and in the county, some are in the city. Within the city, South LA. has been divided up between three or four different council districts. On top of that, the city has divided South L.A. into three different planning areas, each with their own plan.

Throw in the school district, the police and sheriff departments, and various other state and local government entities, and it’s often hard to tell who is responsible for what. That has made it harder for people here to be civically engaged—and to get power equal to our numbers. And those numbers are considerable: 850,000 people live in South LA, as many as live in San Francisco.

If the jurisdictions weren’t enough to divide us, the establishment continues to try to divide us between black and brown. People in power are always talking about that demographic divide.

But what I’ve seen over the years are ways to create possibilities. Twelve years ago, I bought a big, 100-year-old craftsman home in South LA I grew up a few blocks away from this house, helping my dad with his gardening business while my mom ran a day care. I had some struggles as a kid, but found my way to college, became a graphic designer, and started my own design firm. When my company expanded, I decided to move the firm into the second floor of my house.

I like to tell my neighbors: “Don’t move, improve.” Let’s make the “hood” a place we want to live.

I had so much space that I opened The Big House, as we call it in the community. A couple of nonprofits and small businesses have offices in my home. I built a skate park for neighborhood kids in the back. We’ve hosted block parties, health fairs, and all kinds of community events.

With my work colleagues and neighbors, we’ve also tried to tell the story of some of the gains South L.A. is making. For the past two years, I worked on a marketing campaign for Santee High School, which used to be one of the city’s worst, and now is among its best. Many community members didn’t know that. So we put together brochures, and produced original content about how well the students were doing and the school’s offerings in subjects like culinary art, fashion design, entrepreneur courses and perception of the school changed. More people need to be telling the good stories.

Of course, now that we’ve seen so many gains, expectations are higher, and South LA needs to be better prepared for the changes that are coming. Six years ago, I incorporated a nonprofit, Nuevo South, that teaches kids how to code and handle various technologies, produce original content, how to seek a job, how to engage in civic life, how to lead. I saw so many talented people leave South LA when I was young—I was briefly one of them.

Housing prices have gone so high in South L.A. that some people might be tempted to sell. But where are you going to go? You can’t go to Huntington Park or South Gate—you’re priced out. I like to tell my neighbors: “Don’t move, improve.” Let’s make the “hood” a place we want to live. (Photo left:A stately home in Jefferson Park.)

If enough people stay and become more prosperous here, South LA should be able to fund and elect its own representatives.

Then we can steer economic development here, and get local hiring—in everything from tree trimming to the contracting at the new soccer stadium that’s replacing the Sports Arena. South LA can develop its own housing policy that works to get the right kind of development—instead of exhausting ourselves fighting every single luxury condo development that doesn’t offer affordable housing or other benefits to the community. And we could provide far more infrastructure to help small businesses.

We also need to completely popularize civic engagement, so people in South L.A. vote in big numbers, and throw their weight around City Hall—which is really not very far away. This is why I’ve decided to make it a little closer. After years of talking about changing politics and representation in South LA, I’ve decided to do something about it—by running for city council next year.

I’m betting that now that South LA’s people and institutions have more money and resources, we can elect one of our own, and gain the power to match what the place has become.

(Jorge Nuño is founder of El Nuevo Sur. This essay is part of South Los Angeles: Can the Site of America's Worst Modern Riots Save an Entire City?, a special project of Zócalo Public Square  and The California Wellness Foundation.) 

-cw

LATINO PERSPECTIVE--One of the things I like to do in my weekly column is to show my readers the important contributions that Hispanic Americans bring to the United States. 

Famed African American author Ralph Ellison once posed an intriguing question: What would America be like without blacks? Not only did Ellison show the socio-economic and cultural contribution of African Americans, but he also questioned what America would have been if Africans and their descendants did not shape and define America. 

According to Stephen Balkaran who is an Instructor in the department of Philosophy and Political Science at Quinnipaic University, Ellison not only showed that America’s historical, political, economic and cultural definition was contributed to by African Americans, but also reminded us that America has continued to evolve as a country of immigrants. 

Recent debates now surround the “Browning of America,” the continuous reshaping of America and its Hispanic influence. Many of us fail to grapple that America has always been Hispanic. 

Yet, Hispanics have contributed to every avenue of American life since the inception of this country. Hispanic’ origins have played a key role in our country’s socio-economic, political and cultural development and many argue: What would America would be like without the presence of Hispanics and their influence? 

Here is a small but meaningful example. Sigue Corporation founder and CEO, Guillermo de la Viña (Center, photo left), was honored with a Community Hero Award from the Los Angeles Dodgers on Sunday, July 3. The honor is given to leaders in the Hispanic community as part of the Dodgers’ Viva Los Dodgers and Cuban Heritage Day. 

With 25 years of experience in the banking and financial services industry, de la Viña led Sigue to become the fourth largest money transfer company globally. Sigue serves more than 100 countries on six continents.  

“Sigue connects Latino communities throughout the world, and the Dodgers connect us all in Los Angeles,” said de la Viña. “The Los Angeles Latino community is particularly close to my heart because it’s where I’ve built my business. I am very grateful for the way the community has welcomed me and for this special recognition from the Dodgers’ organization.” 

The Community Hero Award is presented to an individual with a tireless involvement in the Latino community. The general public nominates individuals that they think have provided continued support to the Latino community in Los Angeles.  

De la Viña was recognized as one of the most successful and creative individuals in the Latino community by Poder Hispanic Magazine, which included him on the list of the nation’s 100 Most Influential Hispanics of 2011. 

In 2014, de la Viña received the Community Service Award from the Soledad Enrichment Action (SEA), a Southern California non-profit organization, for his public service. He has supported many organizations and non-profit groups, including White Memorial Medical Center, Providence Holy Cross Medical Center, the Salvation Army and the American Red Cross.

About Sigue Corporation 

Headquartered in Sylmar, California, Sigue is a leading financial services company providing international electronic money transfer services to over 100 countries. The company is privately held and operates through a comprehensive network of retailers. Learn more at www.sigue.com. 

(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

DEEGAN ON LA-The shot rang out in the silent summer night, in Silver Lake. One coyote down. Summer is here, the heat is rising, and the hills are full of coyotes that are migrating down from their usual habitats in the now-parched hillsides to urban centers in search of food and water. What to do? Definitely don’t shoot them, as an apparent coyote vigilante did in Silver Lake a few weeks ago. 

"This kind of sniper attack against a coyote is the first I’ve heard of in Southern California. There has been an outpouring of support to find and catch whoever committed this reprehensible act of animal cruelty. Project Coyote is offering a $1,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the sniper who fatally shot this coyote in Silver Lake,” declared Randi Feilich, the Southern California Representative for Project Coyote an organization that promotes coexistence between people and wildlife through education, science and advocacy. 

The LAPD is treating the coyote shooting in Silver Lake as an open criminal case, and asking anyone with information to call the Animal Cruelty Task Force at 213-486-0450. 

Protecting wildlife corridors in the hills, so coyotes and other wildlife can trek to common grounds, is no longer the answer when the native wildlife, that were here long before any of us, descend into Silver Lake, or Hancock Park, or the Valley communities at the base of the Santa Monica Mountains. 

Coexistence with them and education about them are the winning strategies for dealing with our wildlife neighbors that are showing up in urban neighborhoods with real regularity. 

Hillside dwellers may be more familiar with coyotes than city dwellers, although, as the hills continue to densify and attract first-time residents, many more are seeking the “living-in-nature” experience in the midst of urban sprawl -- one of the coveted lifestyles in LA. So, some knowledge about the wildlife population and strategies for coexisting with coyotes in the hills or on city streets is necessary. 

“Many people moving to hillsides are simply unaware there is wildlife living near them in close proximity. Education is the key for safe coexistence", said Feilich. The same advice – education -- applies to city dwellers. 

Project Coyote offers strategies for both hillside and city residents to coexist with coyotes. 

If you live in the city, these are some solutions that will help you manage:

• Start with keeping your animals on a leash when you are taking them for a walk.
• Some waste management containers don’t have self-closing lids--always have garbage contained and covered.
• Fruit on ground attracts rodents and then coyotes. Pick it up when it falls off the tree.
• Don’t feed a coyote by leaving cat food or dog food outside.
• Leaving your pet door open at night is a problem. Close it at night.
• Dusk to dawn is the critical time to be sure you don’t have free-roaming pets when you take them for a walk.
• Spay or neuter your dog. Coyotes can, and will, mate.
• Secure your under-house crawlspaces to deny coyotes a place to hang out and make themselves at home. 

Here are some of the tested and effective strategies if you live in the hills:

• You can build fences around your property. Make them 6 to 7 feet tall because coyotes can leap, and are also good climbers, and sink the fence to a depth of at least a half-foot to prevent them from burrowing under the fence.
• If you have coyotes coming into your yard, you can get solar operated flashing lights, or motion sensors, or motion-activated sprinklers. Any of these methods will scare a coyote away.
• To prevent a coyote from climbing up your fence, you can install a “coyote roller” which has a unique design that prevents coyotes from getting the traction with their front paws needed to climb a fence line. A coyote roller (coyoteroller.com) is a 4-foot, aluminum extruded ribbed roller designed to prevent animals from getting the foothold they need to climb over a fence. It’s simple, safe, and humane; it requires no power source while being maintenance free and durable. 

Project Coyote’s Feilich makes a point many hillside dwellers may not have considered when she advises, “Clear away dense brush and weeds that can become den sites for coyotes who are looking for a safe place to raise their young. April through August is pupping season for coyotes. Don’t create a habitat for them if you don’t want them in your neighborhood. But also recognize that they are one of nature’s most effective rodent controllers so they’re important to healthy ecosystems.”

Project Coyote offers this short video of “Best Practices For Coexisiting With Coyotes”

Others, like California wildlife biologist Kevin Brennan, an expert on coyotes in Southern California who works for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, have also shared their strategies. Brennan recently told a Southern California Public Radio audience that “understanding some of the attributes of coyotes helps -- they’re likely to eat pets, root through your garbage and frighten homeowners.” 

He advises a strategy of deterrence for urban dwellers who are not used to dealing with the growing presence of coyotes that are now often sighted when walking dogs in city neighborhoods. Like others, he suggests keeping pets on a leash when outdoors, cleaning up loose garbage and picking up fruit that falls from trees, thus denying coyotes a free lunch. You can also make coyotes feel uncomfortable by opening and closing an umbrella aimed at them or throwing a tennis ball toward but not at them; this will not hurt them but may scare them away.

Closer to home, Los Angeles Animal Services offers a very informative brochure full of tips and FAQs that can help you, such as: 

What should I do if a coyote approaches me?

• Wave your arms.
• Shout in a low, loud tone.
• Throw objects at the coyote while maintaining eye contact.
• Make yourself look as big as possible.
• If you are wearing a jacket, take it off and swing around over your head.
• If possible go towards active or populated areas but do not turn your back and run from the coyote as that could trigger a chase. 

How can I keep my dog safe?

• Closely supervise your dog.
• Do not leave small dogs unattended in your yard.
• Walk your dog on a leash at all times & stay close to high pedestrian traffic areas.
• Try not to establish a regular routine & route to avoid setting up a pattern for the coyote to detect.
• Avoid dense brushy areas or paths near abandoned properties.
• If you notice a coyote when walking your dog, keep your dog as close to you as possible and move towards an active area.
• Never encourage or allow your dog to interact or “play” with coyotes.

No matter if you live in the hills or the flats, the coyotes are singing the same tune as humans as they roam our streets and hillsides: Home Sweet Home.

(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.

GUEST COMMENTARY-Faced with what may be the most critical moral, civil rights and social justice issue of our time, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is considering asking voters to approve a tax to fund the fight against homelessness. 

Ongoing revenue — as opposed to one-time-only funding — would go far towards implementing the comprehensive 47-point strategy of the Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative, which seeks not only to house the homeless, but to provide a full range of supportive services that are vital for homeless persons to achieve stability and eventually become self-supporting. 

We are in a crisis and, sadly, it is growing. According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, the current homeless population of 46,874, would fill every seat at the downtown Staples Center, USC’s Galen Center and the newly renovated Forum in Inglewood — combined. This is the largest number of homeless men, women and children in a local jurisdiction anywhere in the United States. It’s hard to believe but the trends strongly suggest there will be another 2,000 homeless individuals by this time next year. Needless to say, this is not only unsettling but patently shameful. 

The disturbing increase in homelessness in LA County over the past three years is part of a statewide problem. The Board of Supervisors recently called on Governor Jerry Brown to declare a statewide emergency on homelessness, which would make funding available immediately to assist California’s 115,000 homeless — the most of any state, and more than 20 percent of the United States’ homeless population. The California State Assembly answered the Board’s formal request last month, passing HR 56,  which also urged the governor to make that emergency declaration. The general public has spoken as well, with some 14,000 people signing a petition urging the governor to act. People are paying attention to this inescapable crisis and the number of concerned citizens continues to grow. 

Without abandoning its pursuit of state funding, the Board of Supervisors is also focusing its efforts on placing a sales tax, parcel tax or marijuana tax on the November ballot. Our deliberations are informed by 10 surveys conducted by diverse pollsters from February through July, which showed the electorate consistently and emphatically views homelessness as a top concern, second only to jobs and the economy. The polls also indicated an unprecedented willingness by likely voters to tax themselves to finance solutions to the crisis. The question is: What kind of tax would work best to fund the County’s response to the homeless crisis? There are three proposals to be considered on Tuesday, July 12. They are as follows: 

General Sales Tax--The sales tax proposed to the Board is equivalent to one-fourth of a cent, which would raise about $355 million a year. For the average taxpayer, that amounts to about $1 a month, according to the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation. A County-commissioned survey in April showed 68 percent of likely voters already in favor of a half-penny sales tax dedicated to homelessness — double what the Board is considering. These and other data make it clear that the people of LA County want something done and they are ready, willing and able to pay for it. 

Parcel Tax--Another proposal for the Board’s consideration is a parcel tax that is projected to generate $185 million a year. At 3 cents per square foot, a property owner would pay about $45 annually for a 1,500 square foot parcel. At this rate, the parcel tax would generate less than half of what is required to address the homeless crisis with sufficient resources. 

Marijuana Tax--This proposal may be a promising new source of revenue for the County, but at present, it is unclear how much revenue it would generate and when the County would start seeing returns on the upfront administrative costs. Although using marijuana for medical purposes is permitted under state law, recreational use remains illegal, although voters could change that in November. Even if California legalizes recreational marijuana use, federal law makes regulation and taxation a bit murky at this point. Further, public health and public safety officials, environmentalists and land use experts have all expressed concerns about the potential impact of legalization, and the overconcentration of dispensaries in some areas of the County. 

While each funding option merits consideration and they all generally fared well in the polling, I believe a general sales tax levy provides the best opportunity to secure most of the funds needed on a yearly basis to effectively deal with this crisis. No other option comes close to generating as much revenue as the sales tax. A projected annual yield of $355 million is nearly 80 percent of the total funds needed to put us on a path to ending homelessness, and sales tax revenues are more predictable than the other options. 

It is unconscionable that Los Angeles County — one of the largest economies in the world — has nearly 47,000 human beings living on the streets. We can and must take action to provide decent housing and restore dignity to those forced to live in such unsafe and deplorable conditions, no matter how daunting the task. It is time to put a viable measure on the November ballot and let the voters demonstrate that they are serious about addressing this worsening tragedy.

(Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas represents the 2^nd District for the County of Los Angeles.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

POLICE POLITICS--Mayor Garcetti should rip up the $69 million, conflict-of-interest-tainted, police body camera purchase order recently slapped on his desk by Mitchell Englander (photo above) … the soon-to-be-termed out City Councilmember and recently defeated County Supervisor candidate … whose tireless efforts at ramming the toxic body camera procurement through the Council finally succeeded a few weeks ago. 

GET EDUCATED NOW-On the November 8 ballot, City of Los Angeles voters will be asked to approve Charter changes to improve governance of the Department of Water and Power. At least that’s the theory. The measure contains some new contracting freedom, gives the DWP Board its own staff, and doubles the minimum budget for the Ratepayer Advocate’s Office of Public Accountability. It also opens the possibility that some or all of the city’s Civil Service standards may be modified through a binding labor agreement, provided that merit-based hiring, retention and discharge (not promotion) are retained. These changes are significant. They deserve a YES vote. 

The reality is that the ballot measure does not really free DWP from the political meddling of elected officials. It includes a new “strategic planning” process. This process will give the City Council an oversight role for LADWP investments and rates that it does not have today. Strategic planning is good. Strategic planning for a utility by elected officials who are strongly influenced by election cycles and special interests is not in keeping with the concept of reduced political interference. 

What DWP really needs to resolve its hiring crisis is more positions that are exempt from Civil Service rules. The County of Los Angeles has 10 percent. DWP has 18 positions out of 8,000. Exemptions didn’t make it to the ballot. As a result, DWP is totally dependent on labor negotiations with its dominant union for a solution to its hiring crisis. That is going to be expensive. 

Furthermore, the City Council apparently has no intention of allowing the DWP Board to make the decisions on changes to Civil Service at DWP. The ballot measure requires that any changes made through a valid labor agreement must be approved by the “salary setting authority”. That authority is the City Council. Note that none of the remaining 23 recommendations for DWP Reform include making the DWP Board the salary setting authority for DWP. 

Shortening the terms of DWP Commissioners from five years to four means that all members can be replaced by every Mayor, even with staggered terms. This partially offsets the new ability of commissioners to appeal their dismissal to the City Council. Expansion of the Board to seven members and some decorative skill “requirements” will have little effect on the powers of the Board. The only areas in which elected officials have given the Board additional powers are contracting and setting the salary of the General Manager. Four recommendations (20, 21, 22 and 23) are classic political meddling. 

Inserting into the Charter a requirement that DWP implement monthly billing by January 1, 2020, raises the specter of a three-year (2017, 2018, 2019) forced march to a major billing system software change that can’t be halted if it is not ready. Did we learn anything from the last billing system fiasco?

The following list is a summary of the 24 DWP Reform recommendations from the Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations and Neighborhoods committee (REIRN, or just “Rules”). It breaks them down into categories by the type of action and the timing. 

Ballot Measure, November 8 

—- 01 –Charter Changes - Board GM DWPAO OPA Strategic Plan Personnel Billing.

Ordinances, IF Ballot Measure passes 

—- 02 –Board - Stipend of $2000 per month proposed.
—- 03 –Board - Transition schedule and staggered terms.
—- 14 –Contracts - Eliminate council approval of power contracts and design-build contracts.
—- 16 –Oversight - Four-year investment and revenue Strategic Plans and approvals.

Other actions, IF Ballot Measure passes 

—- 07 –OPA_RPA - (Request) Hiring plan with additional exempt positions.

Ordinances, NOW 

—- 04 –Gen Manager - Board sets compensation annually with approval of EERC.
—- 05 –OPA_RPA - Appropriate and necessary access to DWP documents.
—- 11 –Contracts - GM authority to $5 mil without Board OK Board up to ($15 mil?) without Sec 245.
—- 12 –Contracts - Quarterly and annual contracting reports including outsourcing.
—- 13 –Contracts - Board approves contracts up to 5 years (some 10) without Council OK.
—- 15 –Contracts - DWP may use RFPs and competitive negotiation for special equip.

Other actions, NOW 

—- 09 –Personnel - By Aug 1: a Plan to address DWP hiring needs in existing system.
—- 10 –Personnel - DWP labor negotiations to expedite existing hiring and promotions.
—- 17 –Independence - Ask Mayor to exempt DWP from sweeping oversight of ED4.
—- 18 –Independence - CAO: Options for DWP Board to do own collective bargaining.
—- 19 –Power Transfer - Litigation update with options to modify transfer or resolve the case.
—- 24 –Attorney - Authorize technical or legal changes w advice of CAO, CLA, CC Pres.

Reports for POSSIBLE ordinances 

—- 06 –OPA_RPA - Potential changes to [Charter!] role by ordinance.

—- 08 –Attorney -“Strengthen Board oversight of litigation” without an outside counsel.
—- 20 –Water System - Report: Options for integrated water group (BurSan merger).
—- 21 –Discounts - Report: How to give discounts to Rec & Parks, non-profits, seniors.
—- 22 –Green Power - Report: Options to assure access to green power by low income.
—- 23 –Low Income - Report: Creating an executive level low income advocate at DWP.

For full details on these 23 additional proposals, go to http://dwpreform.lacity.org, click on “Information for Neighborhood Councils”, and look at the related document “REIRN Committee Recommendations on DWP Governance Reform.” The charter changes (the ballot measure) are contained in recommendation number 1. They became new CF 16-1800. 

Each of the recommendations 2 through 24 is still open for Neighborhood Council input. Community Impact Statements can be filed on the original motion (CF 16-0093). Make sure to send a copy of any Neighborhood Council or individual recommendation on DWP Reform to Council President Herb Wesson’s Assistant Chief Deputy Andrew Westall ([email protected]). 

Please send your questions and comments on DWP Reform to [email protected]. DWP Reform information will be posted regularly at http://empowerla.org/dwpmou. There is additional information at http://dwpreform.lacity.org.

(Tony Wilkinson is the Chair of the Neighborhood Council – DWP MOU Oversight Committee. He will be contributing information on the DWP Reform process to the EmpowerLA newsletter each week.) Prepped by Linda Abrams.