CommentsPLATKIN ON PLANNING-It is not easy to remain “king of the hill” on a playground or even in the backrooms of City Hall. But, to hold on to power, we have seen how desperate times require desperate measures. This is why the violent end of Occupy Los Angeles at City Hall’s front door marked the way for the defeat of Measure S, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, several years later.
In combination, they mean that City Hall has – with a few ungainly maneuvers -- returned to business-as-usual. Of course, in both cases, there was ample smoke and mirrors to initially glad-hand supporters of both movements, but it did not take long for City Hall’s real face – warts and all -- to show itself.
In the case of Occupy LA, the City’s response began with a handout of rain ponchos, but within two months, 1400 LAPD cops in riot gear and Hazmat suits emerged from the bowels of City Hall at 12:30 AM to physically attack 300 hard core occupiers and hall them off to jail. Voila, City Hall eliminated this symbolic threat to business-as-usual through official violence, all choreographed by former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a past president of the ACLU of Southern California.
Then, several years, under Villaraigosa’s successor, stealth presidential candidate, Eric Garcetti, City Hall faced a second challenge, Measure S. Like, Occupy LA, the initial response was feigned support. City Hall indicated that the provisions of Measure S were important, and quickly presented several similar programs, suggesting that City Hall was on board.
- A proposal to stem campaign contributions from developers who need official approvals and building permits for their otherwise illegal projects.
- An impressive City Council motion and sweeping Mayoral Directive to quickly update LA’s outdated General Plan elements, with a major role for the public and City departments.
But, these gestures rested on an ulterior motive. They sent a message to voters that Measure S was no longer necessary because the City Council and the Mayor were quickly implementing its provisions. The Los Angeles Times even maintained this fiction after the defeat of Measure S.
The real story, though, was that many Big Real Estate companies dipped deep into their pockets to beat the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. They bought enormous amounts of airtime to disseminate the false claim that Measure S was a housing ban. Working through the structure of the local Democratic Party, the developers’ “liberal” campaign operatives at Pasadena-based SG and A, quickly got City Hall’s elected official and managers on board with their messaging. Then they induced the organizations at the base of the Democratic Party, unions and non-profits, to support the Big Real Estate companies funding the initiative’s opposition. While this campaign strategy did not require LAPD riot cops and jails, it achieved the same result.
It averted another major threat to business-as-usual at City Hall.
What, then, is the result of this one-two-punch to maintain City Hall’s “business-friendly” status quo?
As I pointed out several weeks ago through CityWatch, City Hall remains a giant engine increasing wealth and income inequality in Los Angeles. The 1 percent targeted by Occupy, especially those in the local real estate sector, remains unscathed. And, with their 1 percent ilk filling most new Trump administration appointments, they don’t need to watch their backs while they hunker down with their bean counters, EB-5 visa investors, fixers, rent collectors, and Caribbean bankers.
As for pay-to-pay at City Hall, the practice continues as before, but with one exception. The Los Angeles Times pulled its reporters off of the story. But, independent journalist, Patrick McDonald, has continued to research the City Hall corruption story, with his many reports published by CityWatch.
As for a proper update of the General Plan, as required by both the State of California and City of LA’s Charter, little has changed. As pointed out by Jill Stewart and Ileana Wachtel through CityWatch, it is a top-down enterprise that downplays important issues, especially LA’s shrinking urban forest. Furthermore, the General Plan’s updates are still on the slow track and undertaken in reverse order: first new zoning, then Community Plan updates, and finally updates of the mandatory and optional citywide General Plan elements.
As a result, LA continues to be an impromptu city.
Private parcels, all controlled by private owners and investors, are free to follow the quirks of unpredictable economic trends, regardless of land use ordinances, accurate population forecasts, infrastructure capacity, environmental impacts - especially on climate change, or adopted policies requiring new projects to match the character and scale of existing development.
As for public parcels, each public agency and City Department and Bureau still operates in its own silo. When they bother, they prepare their own plans and forecasts about the infrastructure or public services they provide, as well as their own estimates about future user demand. If any of these coincide with the aged General Plan’s elements, it is by coincidence.
As for the City’s operating and capital budgets, they, too, reflect this same sectorial approach. Each Department and Bureau makes it case to the Mayor and City Administrative Office, independent of the General Plan process. They then cross their fingers and make a few phone calls, hoping that the budget gives them what they requested.
Finally, the two mechanisms that might allow City Hall decision makers to understand the impacts of these thousands of ad hoc actions are missing. This includes the Plan monitoring unit and annual monitoring reports required by the General Plan Framework, and also described in the new 2017 State of California General Plan Guidelines:
Purpose of the (Annual Monitoring) Report
- To provide enough information to allow local legislative bodies to assess how the general plan is being implemented in accordance with adopted goals, policies, and implementation measures.
- To provide enough information to identify necessary course adjustments or modifications to the general plan as a means to improve local implementation.
- To provide a clear correlation between land use decisions that have been made during the 12-month reporting period and the goals, policies, and implementation measures contained in the general plan.
- To provide information regarding local agency progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs and removing governmental constraints to the development of housing pursuant to Government Code section 65583(c)(3).
Because Los Angeles does not have an up-to-date General Plan and because it does not adequately monitor its hodge-podge of mostly old General Plan elements, no one in and out of City Hall has a comprehensive picture of the city. At best they can pull off lucky guesses, and at worst their plans, press releases, and speeches are wildly inaccurate, such as a 2010 population forecast that was half a million people higher than the 2010 census data.
Furthermore, the land use ordinances that implement the General Plan are in the hands of the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS). Unfortunately, LA’s residents, whether they live in the Valley, South LA, Harbor, West LA, or Eastside have the same complaint. They cannot rely on LADBS to enforce LA’s building and zoning codes, including project approval conditions, even when they repeatedly submit code violation complaints. In fact, their complaints are routinely ignored unless they heavily lobby LADBS through City Council offices or resort to law suits.
As a result of this return to business-as-usual, LA’s downward spiral continues, but without any way to measure it. While we have rear-view mirrors that show us how thousands of previous bad decisions lead to so much economic inequality, homelessness, environmental degradation, and real threats from floods, fires, toxic waste, earthquakes, and natural gas leaks, what we really need is a system of governance that looks forward.
Many other cities can show us the way, and their best practices are already there for Los Angeles to copy.
(Dick Platkin is a former Los Angeles city planner who reports on local planning issues for CityWatch LA. Please send any comments or corrections to [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
