LOS ANGELES

@THE GUSS REPORT-Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Koretz has a new way to squander the city’s already strained legal and financial resources on a solution in search of a cause, namely his floundering re-election campaign. 

At a time when the City of Los Angeles faces really big problems -- when does it not? -- ranging from the usual crime, traffic, housing, homelessness and how to pay for public pensions to the very real possibility of losing hundreds of millions of federal dollars when it has to borrow money to pay wrongful death claims, Koretz wants to force gun store and shooting range owners to post suicide hotline notices -- force being the operative word. 

Koretz did not provide any hard statistical data, opting instead for his standard vague claim: “suicide is the leading cause of death among Californians who have purchased a firearm within a year.”   

The specifics Koretz failed to provide are: 

1. How many years back is he counting? The most recent year? The past five or 20 years? 

2. Is he talking about first-time gun buyers? Koretz’ claim goes out the window if he is counting people who bought otherguns more than a year before and did not commit suicide within a year of those purchases. 

3. How does the city define suicide? We know Koretz’ definition of deathis funky when it comes to killing thousands of healthy, adoptable shelter animals and still managing to call LA “No Kill.” Does Koretz’ definition of “suicide” include, for instance, suicide by cop, where someone entices a law enforcement officer to shoot them by pointing a gun, or a gun replica, in their direction without actually shooting it? Dollars to donuts it does…or he doesn’t know. 

4. Why is the message limited to suicide while excluding homicide and other misuses? 

5. Why did Koretz choose the one-year timeframe, since someone purchasing a gun for the purpose of ending his life is probablyintent on doing it imminently, rather than waiting a year? Does someone plan a suicide a year in advance, or is this Koretz’s way of casting an illogically wider net so that his claims are contorted to fit his goal? 

6. And what exactly isKoretz’ goal? Is this Koretz’ Trumpian effort to create a distraction and get his name out of the way of a much bigger story this very same week? 

So what is that other story? It’s how Koretz enabled wealthy real estate developer Rick Caruso to build yet another oversized luxury building in his Council District despite an affordable housing crunch, and despite an outcry about its quality of life impact by Koretz’ constituents and opponents in the upcoming City Council primary where he seeks a third and final term.   

Recently, when pressured, Koretz (who never met a real estate developer’s donation he didn’t embrace) reversed his earlier support for Caruso’s luxury project, but then voted in favor of it when some square footage was lopped off -- even though it still violated long-established community guidelines. That is Trump 101. 

If Koretz is genuinely interested in pursuing nanny-state interests, as he has done throughout his career, perhaps he will consider doing it in ways that might have far greater benefits for Los Angeles.  

For instance, he could try to force Jack-in-the-Box, Fat Burger and other fast food joints to post messages about how fat, sodium and cholesterol in its products lead to obesity, diabetes and heart attacks. This is another form of suicide that impacts infinitely more Angelenos, especially in the poorer reaches of the city. Former Councilmember “Hamburger” Jan Perry tried to ban new fast food restaurants a few years back. How did that turn out? 

Maybe City Hall can force CVS and Target to post overt notices warning of opiate addiction, sexually transmitted diseases and sugar in the pharmacy, condom and candy aisles -- just to cover all bases. 

If Koretz really wants to save us from ourselves, he should first force Verizon, ATT and T-Mobile to warn of the hazards of texting while driving. They already do, but Koretz’ love of having government creep into our lives should make it mandatory; he could also dictate the size, location and color of the signs. 

Koretz would serve us much better if – rather than spending copious amounts of money on lawyers forcing private business owners to take action – he simply created a program where posting such notices is voluntary. Cooperative awareness is more affordable than attorneys, and it is probably as effective. 

For what it’s worth, I don’t own a gun and never have. I believe we need infinitely more effective gun control laws, crisis screening and stronger, mandatory penalties for people possessing guns without a license.  

It isn’t Koretz’ message that is objectionable. It is his priorities, method and motive.

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a contributor to CityWatch, Huffington Post, KFI AM-640 and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @TheGussReport. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ALPERN AT LARGE--It's very cute, if not a bit appalling, to see our local and state leaders falling over each other to prove how "with the people" they are while making laws and backroom deals that fly in the face of fiscal transparency and good government.  And obeying the law. So we're supposed to believe that the local/state anti-Trump pols are ANY better than the Orange Man they're pillorying? 

You like big projects?  I like big projects.  Most of us like big projects.  Except when they're unnecessarily (and potentially harmfully) big.  And when they're too darned expensive (NOT as in, they cost a lot but worth it, but costing 2-3 times or more the reasonable cost of those big projects. 

1) You like high-speed rail?  I like high-speed rail.  Most of us, in the right setting, want those trains we ride (or hear about, at least) to go as fast as is reasonable and as safe as possible.  Amtrak and Metrolink and Caltran to be speedy and cost-efficient...of course! 

A California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) blasting through budget projections.  Well, the outgoing Obama Administration might have cut the CAHSR Authority some slack, but it's doubtful the Trump Administration will be any kinder to cost overruns than they are to Boeing or other air/military contractors who charge too darned much to the taxpayers. 

And it's doubtful that the contracts for the CAHSR to Senator Feinstein's husband's firm, or to bait-and-switch extraordinaire Ron Tutor will make too many of Trump's opponents too happy, because they want the high-speed rail built cost-effectively as well. 

So to the high and mighty state authorities who love the CAHSR but hate Trump (but who will certainly want him to approve money for this Trump-style big project), maybe you should just...go...Trump yourself! 

2) You like the Wilshire Subway?  I like the Wilshire Subway.  Most of us, for that matter, want that project built like...yesterday!  So who does the Metro Board of Directors vote to give the construction contract to extend that project to Century City? 

Why Ron Tutor, of course!  He of the bait-and-switch, substandard construction and master of the "better to ask for forgiveness than for permission" style of doing business!  After his legal battles with Metro for his past subway work, why he'd be even allowed anywhere near Metro is anyone's guess.

Funny how this was approved AFTER Measure M was just passed.  

So for those who are now flush with taxpayer dollars (from those, like myself, who hesitatingly supported Measure M), maybe you should just...go...Trump yourself! 

3) You like Good Planning?  I like Good Planning.  You like Good Government?  I like Good Government. You like the City obeying its Bylaws and Charter?  I like the City obeying its Bylaws and Charter. 

So imagine why those of us community/volunteer activists have concluded that Measure S, which would force updating of Community Plans (rules for zoning and height and density in each region of the City), and which would force megadevelopers to pay for traffic analysts who are impartial and not just "hired guns" to accurately predict impacts of development, is the only way to go. 

Obeying the law.  No longer threatening our environment, finally establishing affordable housing, creating a sustainable infrastructure.  Imagine having reasonably tall and dense development throughout LA in a matter of years to address the housing shortage, and to address affordability and access to our City. All do-able with respect to quick, easy, approvable projects that obey the law and establish neighborhood-friendly and neighborhood-compatible new projects, and which create gobs of jobs. 

And yet WE who support Measure S--the neighborhood council and neighborhood association leaders, and the affordable housing advocates--are the ones pilloried by the "fake news" by the high-and-mighty City Council. 

So while the Mayor and City Council are ramming lawless overdevelopments down our throats (which are ALWAYS thrown out in court if they ever are challenged), and while they're giving us all sorts of "head fakes" to show us how they'll protect us from President Trump, maybe the REAL question is: 

WHO WILL PROTECT US FROM THE MAYOR, THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE PLANNING POLITBURO? 

So for you Downtown clowns, and you Sacramento clowns, so very used to stepping on the necks of the taxpayers and residents of our city, county, or state, maybe enough of us are finally on to you, enough to tell you to: 

GO TRUMP YOURSELF!

(Kenneth S. Alpern, M.D. is a dermatologist who has served in clinics in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties.  He is also 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 Dr. Alpern.) 

DEEGAN ON LA-It’s hard to find building projects that create no public outcry about zoning variances, no destructive impacts to neighborhoods, and no challenges to developers and politicos. But these projects are everywhere – hiding in plain sight -- in downtown Los Angeles. The reason they are unseen is because all of the work is being done inside already constructed buildings. 

While downtown Los Angeles is exploding with lots of new construction projects, it is also recapturing the past through adaptive reuse of many old buildings. These projects provide an increase in housing stock and remind us that there are many forms of development. Repurposing what's already there does not generate the type of community blowback and the bad vibes caused when developers announce new projects that set off struggles with communities opposed to uncontrolled growth -- especially when the developers destroy older buildings to clear the way for the new ones. 

Specialists in the adaptive reuse of buildings are capitalizing on new laws such as the city’s Adaptive Reuse Ordinance with dozens of downtown projects. While this ordinance was designed to cluster housing, retail and workspaces around transit stops, theoretically lessening traffic, it is also establishing multiple “new urbanism” hubs in downtown. This is transforming repurposed buildings into mixed commercial and residential uses where you can work, play, shop and be entertained within easy reach of each other. Cutting down traffic may be a planner’s goal; living in a cool, adaptively repurposed building with some embedded historic character with many of your needs locally met, could be a tenant or owner’s dream. 

The city’s Office of Historic Resources describes the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, approved for DTLA in 1999 and extended to a few other neighborhoods in 2003, as “one of the most significant incentives related to historic preservation in Los Angeles, facilitating the conversion of dozens of historic and under-utilized structures into new housing units,” pointing out that “it provides for an expedited approval process and ensures that older and historic buildings are not subjected to the same zoning and code requirements that apply to new construction.” 

The impact is that “several thousand new housing units, with thousands more in the development pipeline, [are] demonstrating that historic preservation can serve as a powerful engine for economic revitalization and the creation of new housing supply.” 

Architects and designers face a new hurdle, though, in aligning historic codes and principles with modern requirements for building safety and fire department codes. 

"Regulations of LAFD and Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety are my biggest challenges, not neighborhood blowback,” explains Karin Liljegren, the Principal and Founder of Omgivning Architecture and Interior Design. “Trying to find the fine line between liability and historic codes that allows a project to go forward with historic integrity can be difficult. Sometimes, developers will pull out of a project when it becomes too much.” 

Those stress points have not slowed down Omgivning, as evidenced by a visit to its downtown office that is overflowing with workstations, workers as well as several friendly dogs roaming through the space. A look at their project list is exhausting. While Liljegren does not follow the Frank Lloyd Wright practice of building and then furnishing structures in holistic harmony, her teams of architects, designers and urbanists are capable of providing everything from the heavy lifting of architectural visioning to the tiniest design details. 

Off-menu is exorcisms, like expunging the ghosts from one of their projects, the Cecil Hotel, (photo above) which has had a reputation over the past 90 years as a very creepy place -- allegedly home to murders, suicides, missing persons and serial killers. This building needed not only some adaptive reuse, but some proactive P.R. There will likely be a waiting list for occupancy after its makeover. 

The new urbanism is experienced on an intimate scale at the rooftop “farm garden” at the repurposed 801 S. Broadway building, providing fresh vegetables to the several restaurants on the ground floor. One of Omgivning’s biggest projects (at 1.1 million square feet) is the former Hamburger's and May Company Department Store which has also seen service as a garment factory and a branch library on its third floor. According to Omngiving, it is being repurposed into “a large and small retail, a market collective, creative office, and hotel, with a 110,000 SF rooftop that will include a public park, two pools and seven restaurant/bars.” Talk about new urbanism and having everything local: all they need is a curb cut for Uber pick-ups and drop offs. 

New Urbanists, a lifestyle group slowly progressing from cult to broader acceptance, will find lots of opportunities to live, shop, work and play within a small radius at any one of the several repurposed buildings adapted by Omngivning and others in DTLA. 

Best of all, the new urbanists will move into unique and historic housing stock that has not been marred by the contention between communities and developers, negative energy that has affected a great swath of Los Angeles. All those bad vibes, much like what once suffocated the Cecil Hotel, will not be part of their move-in package.

(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].)

CAPITAL & MAIN SPECIAL REPORT-Fernando E. Hurtado scrolled through photos on his mobile phone in a pristine new examination room of South Los Angeles’ federally funded St. John’s Well Child and Family Center. Nearby, his wife, Amy Areli, waited with two of their four children as the younger boy fidgeted nervously. 

“He’s getting his immunization shots today,” Hurtado grinned at the 3-year-old before pausing at a close-up of a woman’s forearm and what looked like a mosquito-bite-sized bump surrounded by a patch of ruddy inflammation. The next image revealed a gaping, half-dollar-sized crater where the bump had been.

“My wife got a tiny cut on her arm that became infected,” Hurtado explained. “It was [Methicillin-resistant] staphylococcus. She spent nine days in the hospital. They told me that if we hadn’t had Medi-Cal, the bill would have been more than $100,000. If this would have happened without medical coverage, there would have been no way for us to afford to pay that kind of expense.” 

On the same day that congressional Republicans set the stage to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the 35-year-old father, who installs artificial lawns, grimly reflected on the shadow that his family and the majority of St. John’s patients have been living under since the election of Donald Trump signaled the coming end of the law that has dramatically transformed California’s health-care landscape. “Before my wife got the infection,” Hurtado said, “our 2-month-old baby was also in the hospital, with an infection for [chicken pox], when he got an infection in his head and he was hospitalized for four days for the same [staph] bacteria. I imagine them not having medical coverage. Yes. Of course I’m worried.” 

Though the form that Trumpcare will take remains vague, for Hurtado and his family -- and the more than 50 percent of their newly insured South LA neighbors, who now rely on the state’s ACA Medi-Cal expansion for their health coverage -- the future remains frighteningly uncertain. They are not alone. 

Over five million Californians have received coverage under Obamacare -- 3.7 million through Medi-Cal and 1.4 million through Covered California -- and the state has logged the largest percentage-point decline in its uninsured rate of any state, dropping from nearly 17.2 percent in 2013 to 8.6 percent in 2015. 

St. John’s alone has enrolled over 18,000 previously uninsured Angelinos, nearly all of them black or Latino, and more than doubled its insured-patient base. The health center has aggressively embraced the new ACA population to dramatically expand preventative and primary care throughout the region, which before the law had been ground zero of California’s uninsured crisis. 

“We provide free medical, dental, mental health and support services, and case management in about 300,000 patient visits a year at 14 sites and two mobile [clinics],” St. John’s Well Child and Family CEO Jim Mangia told Capital & Main.  “We provide health-care services to the homeless. We serve thousands of homeless folks through two mobiles that go into the riverbeds and to help buy homeless shelters. And we’re the largest health provider in South L.A., which is the largest area of contiguous poverty in the United States.” 

But with Trump now in the White House, those gains are in the crosshairs of the new president and the Republican congress. At stake for Californians is $20.5 billion a year in federal ACA subsidies. The murkiness surrounding what will happen next has left the state’s political and public health leadership with little choice but to brace for the worst and hope for the best. 

“It is almost impossible to develop a contingency without knowing exactly what we are dealing with,” state Senate Health Committee Chair Dr. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) told Capital & Main in an email. “A loss of federal funding would be devastating for low-income and middle-class Californians who rely on the ACA for their health insurance. We plan to do everything we can to protect the people of our state and ensure stability in the health insurance market and Medi-Cal program.” 

St. John’s spotlights a lesser-known aspect of the Affordable Care Act — namely, its role as a conduit for $12 billion in construction infrastructure spending and operational funding for the expansion of private nonprofit health centers, which are known as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC). These provide low-income and immigrant communities with quality health care, regardless of a patient’s ability to pay. That makes the center both an exemplar of how much California stands to lose, as well as an unexpected harbinger of what resistance to the abolition of the ACA might look like. 

“I started that literally the day after the election,” Mangia said about planning for the Trump era, “and now I’ve got all of these players. There’s a lot of special interests that benefited from the Affordable Care Act. … We’re talking about, ‘Okay. What’s our advocacy need to look like? Who do we need to be talking to? Who do we need to bring to the table to craft a solution in the state?’” 

Forty-five percent of St. John’s patients are ineligible for insurance under ACA because of their immigration status. According to Mangia, who was part of President Obama’s health policy committee when the Affordable Care Act was first being drawn up, addressing the plight of those ineligible for Obamacare because of immigration status was always part of the plan. Care for the undocumented is partially paid by My Health LA, a no-cost health-care program run by L.A. County. Private fundraising makes up the rest. 

The FQHCs have been instrumental in braking the country’s decades-long expansion of America’s health-care inequality gap, which continues to be one of Obamacare’s most significant achievements. 

Even more transformative, perhaps, is the quality of the medical care and the innovations that ACA has delivered. The law reorganized payment methodology and radically re-prioritized the health-care system with pay-for-performance measures that shifted the focus of providers from end-of-life and sick care to prevention and primary care. It encouraged innovations like the patient-centered “medical home”  -- a holistic delivery model designed to improve quality of care through team-based coordination of care, for the “whole” patient. Tying Medicare payments to the quality, rather than the quantity, of care that characterized the pricey, pre-Obamacare fee-for-service model, created efficiencies and surpluses for health centers like St. John’s that could then be used to serve California’s estimated 3.3 million uninsured, along with its undocumented population. 

“These relatively modest reforms actually ended up being revolutionary in all sorts of different ways,” recalled Anthony Wright, executive director of the advocacy coalition Health Access California. “There was all this really exciting work to provide people medical homes, and have early intervention to keep people healthy before they got sick in the first place. There was exciting work about how to treat issues around substance abuse and behavioral health medically, rather than criminally, which was starting to have profound benefits to not just our health system but to our criminal justice and corrections systems. If we undo the Medicaid expansion, we undo all that progress in one swoop.” 

Preserving that expansion has been the focus of California resistors, including consumer groups, labor unions and Democratic lawmakers, since election day, both in the current campaign by patient advocates, to bring public pressure on Trump and Republicans, and in anticipating the full extent of the damage to California’s Medi-Cal expansion that will need to be controlled. 

Nevertheless, it’s difficult to resist what is still unknown. And the extent of that damage won’t be clear until the plan is unveiled sometime after Trump’s nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services, Georgia Representative Tom Price, is approved by the Senate. 

Recent promises by Trump for a speedy and concurrent repeal and replacement of ACA with “insurance for everybody” that is “much less expensive and much better” have only further muddled the picture. The broad strokes remain at odds with what has been outlined in separate ACA alternatives by Price, who opposed ACA’s fundamental reforms, and by House Speaker Paul Ryan. And Price’s Tea Party antipathy to federal entitlements makes future attempts to cut Medicare and Medicaid likely. 

“Both of [the plans] would repeal most of the regulations under the ACA, but they would restore some aspects of the law, including subsidies for people to buy health insurance,” explained Gerald Kominski, Professor of Health Policy and Management, and director of the University of California, Los Angeles Center for Health Policy Research. “But their subsidies would be substantially lower than those currently available under the ACA, and would [go] back to a market that’s largely regulated at the state level rather than [have] the layer of federal regulations [that has standardized] the individual insurance market. So it’d be a little bit of a free-for-all.” 

California resistors are divided as to whether the state would have the political will or financial wherewithal to make up the federal government’s $20 billion share of the Medi-Cal expansion and Covered California, should it be cut, or to even go it alone with a version of single-payer. 

“I have always believed that health care is a right for everyone in California and the country,” state senator Ed Hernandez said. “The dilemma arises on how to finance it and whether the public supports it. … The state would be unable to backfill the loss of $20 billion in federal funds without massive tax increases or major program reductions.” 

Wright illustrated California’s difficulty in translating a moral imperative into a health-care entitlement by pointing out that the recent passage of Proposition 56, the two-dollar cigarette tax that, beginning in April, will generate a billion dollars annually for Medi-Cal, had faced three ballot fights — and $200 million in opposition spending by tobacco companies — to become law. 

“Before we get to what California does,” he cautioned, “we all need to be focused on the federal fight. The framework and financing that they provide is going to be very determinative about what is possible for California to do, whether it is an Obamacare lookalike or single-payer or anything else.”

Mangia expressed what might be the ultimate vision of California resistance. “I think it would make a very, very strong political statement across the country if the Republicans repeal [Obamacare] and California says, ‘Okay. Well, we’re going to keep it.’ Democrats control two thirds of the legislature. There’s a Democratic governor. I think we have a real opportunity.”

(Bill Raden is a freelance Los Angeles writer. This article was first posted at Capital & Main.)  Illustration by Lalo Alcaraz. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EDUCATION POLITICS--Why a vote for Steve Zimmer in the LAUSD Fourth Board District is like bringing to life an avatar for RESISTANCE. 

Apply to the County Registrar before the close of February for your ballot to be counted here!

Point of order:

‘Resisting’ means here: Refusing to be manipulated deviously by plutocrats. (Plutocrats are those whose power derives from their wealth.)

Resisting signifies here: Refusing to abdicate your vote, which is your portkey to democracy.

Several “Independent Expenditure’s (IEs) have been made by Political Action Committees (PACs), and unlike forcing notrump in the game of Bridge, these are no paeans to subtlety or finesse.

Everyone should be aware that former-mayor Richard Riordan just plunked down $1m to establish a PAC brazenly titled “LA…Opposing Steve Zimmer for Schoolboard”.

Remember Dick Riordan? He’s LA’s octogenarian, thrice-divorced, Irish-American, Republican, self-styled “tough-guy”, the 39^th Mayor, who reigned from 1993-2001. He has been agitating to emasculate Los Angeles’ popularly elected schoolboard for decades. He’s not the only major contributor to IEs opposing Zimmer, and there are more such crocks of gold. Riordan contributed $15,000 to an IE for Nick Melvoin and donated $22,000 (total), the maximum allowable personally to each of Steve Zimmer’s other two LAUSD4 opponents. Like this race, his political machinations are nonpartisan.

And unbounded by moral compunction either; just last summer Riordan was fined $11,250 by LA’s Ethics Commission for shenanigans of incomplete disclosure during the previous LAUSD elections.

Dick Riordan’s net worth is estimated at a mere $100 million, which sadly doesn’t put him anywhere near Forbes’ Fortune 400 list, home to so many of today’s other Education “advocates”.

But nevertheless he is a card-carrying member of the über-rich, a constituent of the immensely wealthy upper echelon, where a wide swathe among the 1% have lately become preturnaturally obsessed with Education Opportunities for the rest-of-us. In particular, this national cabal of multi-millionaires and billionaires is inordinately interested in throwing the outcome of a local populist candidate, to a populist post, in a populist election: Steve Zimmer.

So every single last one of us recently-Berned, Left Without, and rendered outraged electorate should be asking ourselves: Why? Why are the super-wealthy so intensely interested in Public Education? And why are they *particularly* eager to see Steve Zimmer unseated? What does it mean to vote for the plutocrats’ pick?

We should be excruciatingly vigilant against unwittingly empowering yet another pivotal sycophant.

But more to the point, we should be acutely sensitized to beholden money and the consequences of empowering a politically compromised leader.

Ironically, simply having the most money does not immunize against indebtedness; operating through firm moral grounding with an ideology derived internally – not externally – matters.

Independent expenditures may be employed properly to support a candidate but the donors ought never to shape, own or direct the elected’s ideology.

That external rogue influence is what characterizes our Trump crisis, and resisting its furtherance is what understanding the power working to undermine Zimmer’s candidacy will inoculate us against, protecting us from the jeopardy we now face nationally.

So that is why voting for Zimmer is an act of resistance: it protects us from stealth, undisclosed and pernicious, gratuitous agendas.

What clues signal threat from among the supporters of Zimmer’s opponents?

The funders of the PACs supporting Zimmer’s two opponents are constitutionally ambiguous; the same organization chips in $20,000 for one, $25,000 for the other (1/1/16-1/26/17), seemingly without care or ideological conviction regarding which paired endorsee exhibits stronger ideological compatability. From this funder’s dispassionate point-of-view the goal is not to recognize or identify merit but to draw votes from Zimmer thereby forcing an expensive, inefficient electoral run-off less likely to advantage the incumbant than in a primary. This outfit seeks to elevate any non-Zimmer, the better to secure that board seat for their staff. The actual corporeal realization of Zimmer’s loss is irrelevant to them; their indebtedness is not.

And the group running this ambivalent opposition? It is the California Charter School Association (CCSA), equivalently and disingenuously – if not illegally through copyright infringement – conferring advantage through a front group aka “Parent Teacher Alliance”.

Do not imagine for a moment this is the iconic “PTA”, the national Parent-Teacher Association in whose shadow your parents raised you. This copycat Parent Teacher “Alliance” is a Gorgon of a wholly different composition and end-game. It should be enough to note the unapologetic and deliberate replication of the CA State PTA’s moniker, (“CAPTA”, as it’s known here in this state). Observe the palpable difference between this CCSA-“sponsored” and funded, professional web-presence and PTA‘s – a genuine grassroots parent-organization powered by volunteers, who give freely of their time (from many into the thousands of hours sometimes) in service of “children, families and education”.

In contrast CCSA’s “PTA” is a group supported by IEs, dedicated to CCSA’s special interest in seating LAUSD board members. This disclosure anchors the homepage in small print but the implied association clearly piggybacks on the 120 year strong reputation of PTA – and that connection is simply not valid.

So far CCSA has invested $94K toward this special interest of theirs in the LAUSD election. Half this devotion supports the ‘lets-see-who-sticks’ candidate-pair opposing Steve Zimmer. Despite authorizing more charters than anyone anywhere, even in the face of defiance and deception, CCSA deems it intolerable that LAUSD should exercise the oversight of charter schools which it is mandated by election and law to conduct.

And in addition to this “PTA” wannabe group, CCSA funds a network of associated but shrouded special-interest support groups. SpeakUp.com is a parent-branded ‘alternative-news’ website that evades PAC rules for transparency because they are nominally informational and not political. The personnel among these and previous iterations of the same ineffective Edu®eform tropes are abidingly static. But the connection with Trumpism remains: who funds CCSA and why do their initiatives betray common cause with destructive billionaires like Bill Gates, the Walton family and Trump’s nominee for the Department of Education, Betsy DeVos?

While excoriating Zimmer’s acceptance of PAC money from legitimate interests that never were “special” or tangential to teaching and education – that is: Teachers (via their collective association, UTLA), meanwhile “special interests” that truly are dark, obscure and undisclosed actually do underlie Zimmer’s opposition. Ten times that scraped together by his fellow education-professionals – an entire order of magnitude more money – has been spent (so far) by America’s wealthiest-of-the-wealthy to occlude Steve Zimmer, via money funneled through private contributions and the aggregated-money PACs of CCSA and others.

Refusing to accept the cherry-picked candidates of the 1% is precisely the resistance to Trumpism we must engage.

Zimmer’s opposition are all candidates hand-picked by the billionaires. We must resist the temptation to empower them no matter how slick the astroturfed literature that champions support from the faux- or misled grassroots

(Sara Roos is a politically active resident of Mar Vista, a biostatistician, the parent of two teenaged LAUSD students and a CityWatch contributor, who blogs at redqueeninla.com)

I certainly appreciate the resourcefulness of the real estate moguls opposing Measure S, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. It is easy to appreciate their dilemma. They can’t exactly go to the public and state the truth. “We have a successful business model, and we want to keep it. Paying off elected officials so we can build our lucrative real estate projects where we want them is working out just fine for us, so why upset the apple cart?” 

Instead, they have to pay big bucks to PR firms to create AstroTurf organizations that then claim their unplanned and therefore illegal projects are actually creating a tidy, well planned city. As for the supporters of Measure S, they are then tarnished with the claim they are clandestine advocates of urban sprawl hiding behind support for a strong General Plan for Los Angeles. Creative and convincing to some low information voters? Yes. Correct? Absolutely not. It is just more of the fake news and “alternative facts” we have recently heard so much about. 

So, what is a wrong with their roundabout claim that LA’s General Plan, both existing and presumably when Measure S accelerates its update, is really a blueprint for urban sprawl? And what is wrong with their parallel argument that left to it momentum, land use decisions based on developers maximizing profit for individual parcels will somehow produce a Los Angeles that turns its back on sprawl in favor of a planned and sustainable city? 

The answer is plenty! 

The claim that supporters of the General Plan and its update – the essence of Measure S -- are supposedly opposed to density and instead really want sprawl is absolute nonsense. 

Measure S supporters, such as myself, have clearly laid out what we want, directly and by implication: 

• A well planned city, including areas for high density, through an updated and unwavering General Plan.
• Planned alternative transportation modes, including those funded through Measure M, which LA County voters adopted in November 2016.
• Adherence to the City Charter’s provisions regarding General Plan amendments: “conformity with public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice.”
• Systematic updates of the General Plan, including its Community Plans, based on extensive outreach to all Los Angeles neighborhoods.
• Orderly implementation of the General Plan through planned density and planned alternative transportation modes, per Measure M.
• Careful, annual monitoring of the city’s General Plan, including its implementation programs.
• Regular mid-course General Plan corrections when annual monitoring reveals that adopted plans are not achieving their objectives. 

Measure S supporters have also clearly stated what we do not want: 

• Unplanned development based on market whims.
• Weak EIRs and Statements of Overriding Considerations that allow unmitigatable levels of Green House Gases.
• Pay-to-play pat-a-cake between developers and elected officials so illegal projects can get spot-zones and spot-General Plan amendments.
• Auto-centric shopping and luxury towers that obtain their spot-zones and spot-plan ordinances through phony, unmonitored claims of being transit-oriented. 

None of this remotely translates into support for urban sprawl, and, in fact, LA’s adopted plans have been distinctly anti-sprawl since the 1970s Concept Plan. This early plan evolved into the General Plan Framework, and its Transportation Chapter is also anti-sprawl, and is the new Mobility Element that the City Council recently adopted. 

Furthermore, there is not the slightest chance that the update of the existing General Plan triggered by Measure S will somehow promote a decentralized, sprawl-prone city. That era is long gone, and this allegation is just the contrivance of worried beneficiaries of the status quo, those who are funding the opposition to Measure S.

While I see no evidence that this information about the actual anti-sprawl content of the prior, current, anticipated General Plan will have much impact on the true believers who imagine that unrestrained market forces beneficially shape LA’s land use patterns, I hope this information will sink in among those who sensed but could not quite identify the deceptive arguments from the anti-S groups.

 (Dick Platkin regularly reports on planning issues for CityWatch. Please send any comments or corrections to [email protected].)

CORRUPTION WATCH-President Donald J. Trump and his adviser Kellyanne Conway use “Alternative Facts,” which Meet the Press host Chuck Todd correctly identified as “Falsehoods.” In 2014, our own Judge Allan Goodman made the same observation about Eric Garcetti and his use of Alternative Facts when His Honor rejected Garcetti’s update to the Hollywood Community Plan. As judges often do, Judge Goodman used polite legalese, saying that Garcetti used “fatally flawed data” and “wishful thinking” -- which we know mean Lies and Myths. 

How Lies and Myths and Alternative Facts crashed the economy in 2008. 

Lies, Myths and Alternative Facts (LMAFs) resulted in the Crash of 2008 which devastated millions of Americans. The crash grew out of the ethos of Alternative Facts which originated from corrupt business practices right here in the Los Angeles area. Mortgage lenders like Countrywide and Indymac Bank were selling defective mortgages to Wall Street. (A defective mortgage is one in which the lender knows that the homeowner cannot pay off the loan and will default.) Wall Street would then bundle together defective mortgages and sell them to pension funds, foreign countries, etc. (Goldman Sachs executive and Trump’s Secretary of Treasury-designate Steven Mnuchin made his multi-million fortune by buying Indymac Bank after the Crash of 2008.) 

We need to focus on how LMAFs crashed the economy in 2008 because, once again, they are at work both nationally and locally. Unless we stop this massive and near perpetual disinformation, life will become much worse for everyone. 

Normally, a Wall Street investment firm like Goldman Sachs selling junk mortgages would result in investors not buying any more products; but the nature of defective mortgages was covered up by a second corrupt practice: The investment houses would guarantee the buyers that if the income from the bundled mortgages dipped below a certain amount, the investment firm itself would make up the difference. Thus, all those pension funds, foreign countries, etc. felt safe in buying the bundled mortgages. 

However, there was a third level of fraud. The insurance sold by the investment houses to guarantee that the bundled mortgages would pay out the benefits was not insurance. Insurance should require the investment house to set aside insurance premiums to pay off the claims. Goldman Sachs et al were not putting those “premiums” into accounts so they would have the cash to pay future claims. Rather, they counted the premiums as regular income and spent the premium money. If State Farm spent all the premium money it collected, it would have no money to rebuild your home if it burned down. Likewise, when the investment firm spent all the “premiums” from the “insurance” it sold to buyers of the bundled, defective mortgages, it had no stock pile of cash to pay the claims. 

Then, there was the fourth level of fraud. Insurance may only be sold to people with an insurable interest in a house or person. Thus, I cannot take out fire insurance on my neighbor’s house and my neighbor may not take out insurance on my life.   

This is what occurred with bundled defective mortgages. Wall Street executives who created the defective bundles bought the “insurance” that would pay executives when their bundles failed. How long do you think you would be alive if MS-13 owned a $25 million dollar life insurance policy on your life? This is the criminal core of the Crash of 2008. Wall Street executives intentionally created defective bundled mortgages, then bought “insurance” on them. It’s the same as betting against a race horse you just drugged. 

Since the bundles of defective mortgages had been designed to fail in order for the “insurance” to pay off, Wall Street executives started buying worthless mortgages from Countrywide, Indymac Bank and similar mortgage lenders. The faster the bundled defective mortgages failed, the sooner the Wall Street executives would collect on their “insurance.” 

Because so many mortgages were being “sold,” the public erroneously assumed that people were buying all these new homes. Thus, billions of dollars were diverted to housing construction. All the mortgage companies wanted was a signature on a piece of paper, then they’d sell it to Wall Street with no regard as to whether the home “buyer” was employed or even existed. It got to the point that mortgage companies were inventing buyers and selling fake documents to Wall Street. 

Wall Street executives did not care if homeowners could not afford the homes or that these homeowners were non-existent. The worse the mortgages became, the faster the bundles crashed and the faster the executives would put in their insurance claims. They called the insurance “credit default swaps” solely to evade any insurance regulations. 

Because these Wall Street executives sold trillions of dollars of “insurance” on defective bundled mortgages, investment firms were faced bankruptcy unless one of two things happened: 

(1) The U.S. government could immediately insure all mortgages. 

Then no bundled mortgage would fail and no one could make a claim under the “insurance” (credit default swap.) No investment house would face failure as there would be no insurance claims based on defective mortgages. The cost to the government to start up such a program overnight could have been as high as $100 billion. 

(2) The U.S. Government could bail out the Wall Street firms. 

Using this approach, all the bundled mortgages would fail and Wall Street executives could collect their trillions of dollars through “insurance claims.” That is why the Obama-Geithner chose to bail out Wall Street – to make certain Wall Street firms had enough cash to pay off the crooks who had perpetrated the greatest economic crime in world history. Trillions of dollars flowed to Wall Street firms while Main Street went bankrupt. This corruptionism is also the origin of the Politics of Revenge that has brought us President Donald Trump. 

Lies, Myths and Alternative Facts underlie the current LA housing market. 

The current high prices for Los Angeles residential real estate is similarly based on Lies, Myths and Alternative Facts. 

LMAF #1: There is no high demand for housing in Los Angeles. 

Just as people incorrectly believed there was a huge demand for housing between 2002-2007 because it appeared that so many homes were being purchased, the high price of Los Angeles houses does not mean there is a demand for housing. As we learned in 2008 and forgot by 2009, crooks can manipulate markets thereby deceiving millions of people into believing there is a demand for housing. But there is always a crash. 

LMAF #2:   There is no single LA Housing market. 

In reality, Los Angeles has several markets for homes and what happens in one housing market does not always affect another market. Each situation requires analysis based on real facts. 

Families who want to buy a home in Echo Park are not driving up the cost for mansions in Bel Air. There is a stratification by price range for Los Angeles housing, but there is bleed over between nearby prices ranges. For example, after the City had 22,000 rent-controlled units destroyed and allowed judges to improperly eject poor people from their rent-controlled homes, four things resulted: 

• Those people who could afford places in the next higher housing bracket bid up the rents for apartments which were just above the rent-control level. 

• Those who could not afford to pay more than the low rent-controlled prices, e.g. the elderly and disabled on fixed income, became homeless. We do not add their rent of Zero Dollars to the cost of housing.   

• Rental agencies reported that average rents had increased and used that biased data to raise rents. 

• People believed that higher rents reflected an increased demand when in reality it reflected the fact that the Garcetti Administration reduced the supply of apartments for poor people by destroying rent-controlled housing. 

The forces threatening Middle Class neighborhoods are more deceptively insidious. 

As written in previous CityWatch articles, the worse threat to Los Angeles Middle Class is that homes are no longer valued by their value as Living Space but rather by their value as Speculative Investments. Because developers know that they can re-zone any property to anything that they want, they buy homes in lower priced residential areas where they plan to build two to eight houses on a single family lot. 

The lot where the developer plans to put a Granny Flat is worth more to him as Speculation than it is worth to a family as Living Space. Because the developer knows that he can bribe his way to a Small Lot Subdivision, the price of the “family home” zooms into the stratosphere. A small parcel with 8 homes, each separated by 6 inches, is worth far more money to a developer than the family can afford. 

A middle class family does not have to be in direct competition with a developer to be faced with a detached home’s Speculative Value. The realtor who sets the listing price researches recent sales prices for comparable homes. If two streets over, a home which was worth $300,000 for Living Space sold for $1.2 million on its Speculation Value, then the new home is priced at around $1 million even if the Living Space value is less than one third as much. 

The evils which flow from residential properties’ prices being based on Speculative Value. 

People, who pay attention to facts and the laws of economics, as opposed to Lies, Myths and Alternative Facts, know that certain evils always follow the “market dislocations” caused by LMAFs. 

(1)   The Middle Class moves away. 

It’s a form of osmosis where upwardly-mobile middle class families move away from the High Cost, Low Opportunity cities like Los Angeles to Low Cost, High Opportunity cities like Nashville, Denver, or Austin, Texas. Los Angeles is already experiencing a significant net loss of its Family Millennials too this trend. 

(2)   The reduced demand for housing does not lower housing prices. 

Prior to the Crash of 2008, there was virtually no demand for housing, yet the prices continued to increase. Mathematically, all financial frauds collapse; but until they do, prices show little or no indication of the bust that is a few months or weeks away. Prices remain high because they are based on the public believing the LMAFs. Eventually, however, people see reality and the crash arrives. 

(3)   Millions of homeowners who bought high are stranded in homes worth far less than the equity they have in those homes. 

This drop in prices often wipes out families’ “nest eggs” since they have dumped all their cash into mortgages for homes which were inflated by two, three or four times of their true value by the Garcetti Administration’s disinformation. They can neither sell nor renegotiate these mortgages. 

People who purchased homes based on inflated Speculative Values live in finance hell. They must continue paying these mortgages based on old values that are much higher than the new lower values. Since they dumped all their extra cash into their homes, they do not have adequate insurance or stocks, pensions or other investments. They are often “house poor” – with every cent tied up in the house. They just have to pray they can hold on until a better economy returns. 

When the economy turns down, people are laid off. If a lay-off happens to a family that is “under water” with its mortgage, it may be headed for the streets. There will always be a kind and loving Steven Mnuchin ready to foreclose on that family, even if it was only 27 cents short in a payment. 

The need for Residential Mortgage Insurance. 

Since Obama-Geithner refused to institute Residential Mortgage Insurance (RMI,) once people are laid off, they needlessly lose their homes. Sure, they may find decent jobs – a year after their homes’ foreclosure -- but that’s of no help to them or the economy. Residential Mortgage Insurance is like fire insurance where the insurer makes up the short fall in the mortgage payment due to a financial disaster. 

For example, if the Mom is laid off and the family lacks $1,500 on the $4,000 mortgage, the insurance pays the $1,500. This government insured program is good for the general welfare of the nation because it will stop a crash in the housing market like what happened in 2008. But Obama-Geithner thought a complete crash was preferable, and thus, they refused to institute RMI on even an emergency basis. Now, the nation is again vulnerable. 

The Big Lie on which the LA residential housing market rests. 

It is fraudulent to insist that there is demand for dense housing, that people want to live in mixed-use projects next to freeways, that people want Granny Flats or that people want to pay $850,000 to live in a house six inches away from another with no yard, no garden, no place for a dog, and no room for the kids to pitch a tent. Thus, we are paying taxes on billions of dollars of city bonds to construct the very type of dense housing which is emblematic of the fraud eating away at our economy. 

We know that Garcetti is still feeding us a diet of Lies and Myths, just as we know that Family Millennials are moving away from LA to places where they can afford to buy a detached home with a nice yard with fruit trees and plenty of space. Worse yet, the decent employers are following the Family Millennials out of town.

(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.) Cartoon: LA Times. Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

BUTCHER ON LA-On Saturday, January 21, 2017, an estimated 750,000 people took to the streets of downtown Los Angeles in support of the Women’s March on Washington organized as a day of action, celebration, and protest in cities across the country and world. A local announcement billed it as an event for: “Everyone who stands for human rights, workers’ rights, civil rights, and compassion for our shared humanity.”

It was wonderfully festive, totally unorganized, peaceful as could be. About half of the participants, by my observation, were young (mostly) women who'd never marched before; the rest were all the rest of us. It was joyous and magical! 

Said one participant, echoed by many, backed by so much pink: “There was an incredible politeness from the majority of the protesters. People were so close and I had never had so many boobs bump into me but everyone was saying ‘sorry’ and ‘excuse me.’ It was amazing!  There was a variety of people there from old to young and of all races. The women who spoke were amazing. Janet Hahn was great and I think made us proud to be Angelenos.” 

There was no appreciable parade route. My adult son Steven, his friend Raj and I walked from City Hall to Pershing Square, got as close as we could, and along with a mass of other people, turned around where we were to march back to City Hall. I saw bunches of LA City traffic officers but no police. Of course there was no need as it was peaceful, safe for babies and children and dogs, and so many women. Everywhere you looked, in every direction. I’ve been in large marches and rallies and this was by far among the largest of LA gatherings. 

For me, it felt historic. To march with my son – on the weekend just before my 60^th birthday – felt glorious and so very hopeful!

(Julie Butcher writes for CityWatch, is a retired union leader and is now enjoying her new La Crescenta home and her first grandchild. She can be reached at [email protected] or on her new blog ‘The Butcher Shop - No Bones about It.’) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

MUSING WITH MIRISCH--In a city in which an election was won four years ago by seven votes, every vote should count. But only the votes that should count should count. And that’s a problem in Beverly Hills.

Voter fraud is real. It’s alive. It’s happening. And we have to stop it. Whether or not it happens at the federal level, we know it happens at the local level. We have seen it ourselves and our own investigations have proven it happens.

Last night at a marathon City Council meeting, the Beverly Hills City Council at my request unanimously agreed to launch an Anti-Voter Fraud Initiative. The initiative will attempt to use every tool at the Council and City’s disposal to protect the integrity of our local election, the next of which is March 7 (and in which I and the vice mayor are up for re-election). 

We will attempt to inform our own voters to help report suspected instances of unauthorized voters (“If you see something, say something”), as well as continue to lobby the Secretary of State, our DA and other officials to take the matter of suspected voter fraud seriously and to take action. The decision to launch the Anti-Voter Fraud Initiative follows a Monday meeting of the City’s Sunshine Task Force which we created to make our city a model of transparency and good government.

Yes, we are frustrated.

Our frustration and the decision to educate, lobby and take whatever local action we can to deal with voter fraud is preceded by two Council study sessions in which we discussed the matter with representatives from the local registrar-recorder and the Secretary of State, one meeting more exasperating than the other. We shouldn’t have to self-police and we are extremely limited as to what we can do locally to put an end to voter fraud.

Some background information is in order, particularly for those who aren’t familiar with Beverly Hills, beyond the stereotype, or suggest that voter fraud doesn’t exist.

In 2008 a local developer won a referendum by 129 votes which granted a controversial building entitlement. The developer spent millions of dollars prior to the election with all manner of expensive propaganda. The grass-roots group opposing the developer’s plans suspected that many voters who had voted in Beverly Hills were not bona fide or legal residents of the City, but nonetheless voted in the election.

In a Herculean effort, volunteers canvassed the city, going door-to-door to investigate the claims of voter fraud. They uncovered 569 documented cases of voters who were not entitled to vote in our local election. The group of phony voters included random people registered at unsuspecting residents’ addresses, non-U.S. citizens, Beverly Hills residents’ adult children who themselves were domiciled elsewhere, etc. That’s right: there were 569 documented cases of illegal voters in an election which had been won by 129 votes. The math is pretty simple.

The citizens’ group turned over their voluminous documentation over to the local DA’s office, which complimented them on their meticulousness and then proceeded to do... absolutely nothing. No indictments. No prosecution. No convictions. Nothing.

Fast forward to the months preceding the Nov. 2016 election: the same developer who had won the tainted 2008 election was now attempting to pass an initiative to build a 375-foot skyscraper in Beverly Hills. As in 2008, the developer spent millions of dollars in campaign propaganda (it turns out that the developer ended up spending more than $1000 per vote in a losing effort), and reports of potential illegal voters arose once again. The City received a list of over 500 voters registered at a few business addresses. As a Council colleague remarked, the limited number of business addresses makes this seem like an organized effort. We turned the list over to the Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder, who sent letters out to these 500 registered voters, informing them that their voting status would be placed on hold pending their verifying that they actually lived in Beverly Hills and were entitled to vote here.

It turns out that only two of the over 500 registered voters ended up verifying that they actually live in Beverly Hills.

If we had not been provided with a list of unauthorized registered voters, which we forwarded to the registrar with the request to invalidate the registrations pending further confirmation, we could have had 500 illegal voters in the November election. This is in a City in which, as mentioned, a councilmember won election in 2013 by a mere seven votes.

At our Council study session earlier this month in which we asked for representation from the local registrar, the Secretary of State’s office and the DA, only the registrar seemed to take the problem of voter fraud seriously. The Secretary of State’s representative gave answers which actually decreased our confidence in its ability to protect the integrity of our voting process and raised the frustration levels of the entire Council. After having refused to prosecute the widespread 2008 voter fraud, the DA’s office refused to even send a representative to our Council meeting, even after I followed up the initial refusal with a letter to County DA Jackie Lacey, personally asking her to send a representative to discuss this serious issue. Their job is not just to prosecute voter fraud (something they evidently refuse to do, as was the case in 2008) but also to help us avert such crimes which undermine our electoral system. This nonchalance was both shocking and stupefying.

At that meeting, as confirmed by our City Clerk, we pointed out various ways in which voter fraud could occur and evidently had occurred: people could simply register at houses where they did not live, either with or without the bona fide residents’ knowledge or they could register at business addresses, as they had done in the past. At the polls, they could comb through the voter rolls and see who had not voted and simply get replacements to vote in their stead. There is effectively no way under our current system to avoid or deal with most of these situations, particularly if the local DA’s office is unwilling to take action.

According to today’s Washington Post: “Multiple investigations of the extent of in-person voter fraud — someone showing up to vote fraudulently — have found that it’s not a significant problem.” Well, if these “investigations” are anything like our own experience, this is a prime example of a self-fulfilling conclusion. Our Secretary of State’s office and our own DA seem unwilling to investigate or even acknowledge the problem. Small wonder that ostrich “investigators” - in opposition to grass-roots residents - are finding that voter fraud is “not a significant problem.” See no evil. Hear no evil... You get the picture.

Our situation is different from President Trump’s claims of voter fraud in that many (though not all) of the phony voters in Beverly Hills are US citizens who simply don’t live in Beverly Hills and therefore are not entitled to vote in municipal elections. But the problem remains a serious one at any level of government and we deserve to have faith in the integrity of our electoral system at all levels of government.

On Tuesday, the National Association of Secretaries of State issued the following statement: “We are not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President Trump, but we are open to learning more about the administration’s concerns.”

How about also being open to learning about the concerns of cities in which elections are won and lost by seven votes? How about taking action in instances in which voter fraud clearly has taken place and in which there are ongoing attempts to rig our elections?

Whatever the situation at the national level, we in Beverly Hills are committed to doing whatever we can to protect the integrity of our local elections, even if we do not receive the support from the authorities who are tasked with doing so. Because if the integrity of our electoral system is not protected, if bad actors know that they can literally get away with voter fraud without any consequences, then we can expect to see this phenomenon spread and grow, further undermining our democracy.

Local government, when done right, is the best form of democracy because it is closest to home. For it to mean anything, though, the elections in which the residents choose their local leaders and decide on local issues must be on the up and up. Sacramento, we have a problem.

And so the Beverly Hills Anti-Voter Fraud Initiative is born. Let’s hope other cities and municipalities join us to create a coalition against voter fraud. Our democracy is too precious to allow its very fundament, our elections, to be subverted.

(John Mirisch is the Mayor of Beverly Hills. He has, among other things, created the Sunshine Task Force to increase transparency, ethics and public participation in local government. Mayor Mirisch is a CityWatch contributor.)

-cw

 PLATKIN ON PLANNING-In writing and speaking about Measure S, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, I have recently encountered an emotionally charged argument that Measure S is a ruse by old geezers (baby boomers like myself) living in single-family homes. Apparently the boomers want to maintain their property values at the expense of Millennials -- that is, the 20 and 30 somethings. Curiously though, the old geezers who own and run the four large real consortiums funding the opposition to Measure S and devising the anti-S arguments repeated by these Millennials play no role in this imaginary generational conflict. 

While one of the great lessons from the recent presidential election was the enormous support from Millennials for the two most progressive candidates, Senator Bernie Sanders and Dr. Jill Stein, these anti-S Millennials are apparently outliers. Their belief, nevertheless, that market magic can cure urban ills -- especially overpriced rental housing, poor job creation, and inadequate transit ridership -- needs to be addressed. 

In their view, since Measure S jump-starts LA’s legally required but moribund General Plan process, and then reinforces the new plans with well-defined rules on how developers can adulterate them, these strengthened land use regulations will stymie vast market forces. If unleashed by even more deregulation, the private market will create a cornucopia of cheap housing and alternative transportation modes for Millennials. 

As a parent of two Millennials, let me explain why this bewildering belief in market magic, which we usually associate with Garcetti-type neo-liberal politicians and their developer patrons, is bunkum. Whatever their ages, those who have drunk this Kool-Aid only need to look outside their apartment or house windows to debunk these market magic myths. In LA, they will see what happens when private greed substitutes for rational city planning: homeless encampments, billboards and super-graphics, McMansions in the shadows of luxury towers, crumbling sidewalks, a patchwork of risky bike lanes, gridlocked streets full of potholes, widespread building code violations, demolition of rent stabilized apartments, illegal evictions, sagging overhead wires, treeless boulevards, and barely paved alleys filled with discarded couches. 

Then, it they go to City Hall, they will see pay-to-play politics on open display at the City Council. There, every big real estate project, such as the Caruso luxury tower near the Beverly Center, obtains its special spot-planning and spot-zoning ordinances by a consistent 15-0 margin. For them, the LA Times exposes of developer contributions to elected officials to obtain land use entitlements barely registers. 

I suppose a few people, whatever their age, welcome these byproducts of deregulation, but most of those opposing Measure S, including Millennials, have not yet come to terms with what actually lies ahead if Measure S fails. 

They will rediscover LA’s status quo. Their expected rosy future will be nothing more than the broken present that the corporate funders of anti-S ads wish to maintain. It is the dystopia we already live in, not the utopia they imagine will result from the full-on deregulation of private land in Los Angeles. 

The plethora of affordable market housing and low income housing that the anti-S corporate funders promise is just a ploy. It will not appear because, like today, developers want to maximize their profits. That is why they build luxury housing and then repeatedly claim – despite zero evidence – that these unaffordable units actually create affordable housing through filtering and over-supply.  

This is why I have also previously suggested that anyone who seriously believes that market magic is a panacea for Los Angeles should screen Bladerunner. (Photo, above) It is an extreme, free market vision of the dystopia we already live in. 

Why ‘market magic’ does not work in Los Angeles 

Los Angeles is already a city with virtually no effective regulation of land. Yes, land use laws and regulations are still on the books, but they are peripheral to day-to-day decision-making and code enforcement. Nearly every waiver from LA’s legally adopted plans and zoning sails through in unanimous votes, including the spot-zone changes and the spot-General Plan Amendments that the City Council routinely grants through special ordinances. 

As for LA’s rampant violations of the City’s zoning and building codes, it up to residents to phone them into the Department of Building and Safety (LADBS). Once there, they apparently disappear into a time warp because nothing ever happens. Developers therefore know they can game the permitting and inspection system because the LADBS code enforcement function is in deep hibernation. 

The free market apparently means developers know they are free to do whatever they want: illegal demolitions (that ignore regulations for asbestos and lead paint), billboards, supergraphics, McMansions, bootlegged signs, garage conversions, and even unpermitted remodels have become routine. 

This stark reality means that any Angelenos who imagine that a free market utopia is waiting in the wings should stop believing their lying eyes. The Los Angeles they already live in reveals market magic hard at work, and it will only get worse if Measure S fails on March 7. Then, an even more deregulated Los Angeles will pull them -- including Millennials – down further. Still more expensive housing will appear when the City Planning Department, City Planning Commission, and the City Council continue to sideline the General Plan, adopted zoning, and the California Environmental Quality Act. 

The free market is the culprit, not planning and zoning 

As for the other part of the free market equation, economic inequality will increase when developers can build what they want, where they want, when they want through easily obtained zone variances, zone changes, and General Plan Amendments. Their underlying parcels will quickly appreciate in market value when planning and zoning restraints are removed. But this windfall does not come out of thin air; it comes out of the pockets of tenants who are painted into a corner by systematic rent increases, overcrowding, and cutbacks in public services. Of course, they are the lucky ones because they do not yet need to live in cars, garages, or on the streets. 

Furthermore, the downward mobility experienced by many Millennials does not result from cities sticking to their legally adopted plans and zones. It is exactly the opposite. Apparently some Millennials have succumbed to the developers’ claims that existing zoning holds back housing construction. But, LA’s status quo already has more than enough zoning where developers could build apartments, but choose not to. 

There are no legal barriers to the construction of three to five story market rate and affordable apartments on LA’s long commercial corridors. Instead, the barriers are strictly self-imposed. Such buildings are not as profitable as luxury high-rise towers with sky-high rents. The free market adored by Measure S opponents is the real culprit, not zoning and planning rules. 

Final word on who benefits from the defeat of Measure S 

All we need to do is follow the money since a defeat perpetuates the pay-to-play status quo in Los Angeles. That means anti-S claims about large, unplanned real estate projects (i.e., unrestrained real estate speculation) generating transit ridership, jobs, and affordable housing will be quickly exposed as the disingenuous arguments of self-serving opportunists. 

While luxury high-rise towers and shopping centers are certain to appear through spot-zones and spot-plans, anyone who imagines that they will usher in these social benefits will get a harsh dose of reality. None of these imagined social benefits have appeared in the past and present, and none will appear in this future.

(Dick Platkin is former LA City planner who recently taught courses on sustainable city planning at USC and CSUN. He is also a former union officer, who worked hard to create labor-neighbor alliances in Los Angeles. Please send corrections or comments to [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EASTSIDER-You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know that CalPERS has taken some hits over the past months. There was the series of articles in the LA Times, OpEd pieces everywhere from the Sacramento Bee to a pretty concerted attack in a variety of electronic media. Almost all were directly aimed at CalPERS and the two court cases bobbing up at the California Supreme Court on the “California Rule.”

While that’s been going on, the CalPERS Board of Directors has been more concerned with visiting Monterey for a retreat and deciding who gets to be their President and Vice-President, than in real governance. Witness the puff pieces CalPERS has been issuing: “CalPERS joins Global Sustainability Benchmark for Real Assets Program,” “Diverse Director DataSource joins Equilar Diversity Network,” and “CalPERS Adopts Environmental, Social and Governance Strategic Plan.” 

My favorite was “CalPERS Honored as Sustainable Business of 2016.” Really, you can read it here. 

While the puff piece was actually about conservation, the double entendre of CalPERS’ own fiscal sustainability is impossible to ignore. Indeed, new CEO Marcie Frost noted in her lead article in the winter issue of their magazine PERSPECTIVE that “...one of my immediate priorities will be ensuring the long-term sustainability of the fund.” I wish her luck. 

Underneath the Rhetoric 

Underneath the happy face public persona of the Board and their CEO, I believe that a much darker change is occurring. Namely, the joint has been turned over to and is being run by a bunch of self-serving lawyers. 

Now lawyers, used properly, are a very good thing -- that’s why we have them to keep us out or get us out of trouble. Lawyers, given carte blanche, on the other hand, can be a very scary thing. Just look at the law firms involved in the Panama Papers overseas money laundering for the rich, or, closer to home, note the fact that around half or more of our elected politicians in California are lawyers. No wonder the State is in trouble. 

Let me give you a specific example regarding the dearth of any transparency at CalPERS, that’s been organized and orchestrated by their very own General Counsel. Readers of my column will recall that I wrote a pretty scathing piece about the hiring of a sleazebag Florida attorney named Robert Klausner to be their Fiduciary Counsel, even though he was scandal-ridden and not even licensed in the State of California. 

The process of hiring Klausner was so shoddy and manipulated by then CEO Ann Stausboll, that I characterized it as a Betrayal of Public Trust.  

Well, the combination (maybe a little bit) of my articles and a lot of heat from the Naked Capitalism blog must have struck home. The NC folks partnered up with California’s First Amendment Coalition and an excellent attorney (Karl Olsen) to actually sue CalPERS and their attorneys for violating the Public Records Act. 

You can read the tale here, [[[   http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/08/calpers-tainted-fiduciary-counsel-robert-klausner-departs-after-nc-publicizes-his-dubious-history.html ]]] and it says a lot about CalPERS General Counsel Matthew Jacobs ethics. Reads like a soap opera, except they’re playing with billions of dollars of public funds. 

When Klausner magically departed around August with no notice and no explanation as to why or how he was dumped, I became very interested in what was going to happen next. After all, look at the process that brought us Klausner. So I did what any red blooded American would do -- I filed a Public Records Request. 

Hiding Behind Lawyers While Rome Burns 

Orchestrated by General Counsel Jacobs, here was the dance. I wrote in mid-October asking for any and all documents regarding CalPERS search for a new fiduciary counsel. In mid-November I get a letter saying that they are “searching” and will get back to me by the end of November. 

On November 30, they send me a letter which says, basically, that everything I have asked for is exempt on the grounds of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality. So, I get a copy of the Solicitation Bid for Outside Counsel. Period. Have a nice life, pound sand. 

Then, as I am searching through Board Agendas to find out what if anything ever actually happened regarding outside fiduciary counsel, I find this gem buried in the Day 3 Agenda covering a spiffy little “offsite” Board/Executive Retreat which was held January 17-19 in Monterey CA, at the Monterey Tides. (It’s evidently hard work to be on the CalPERS Board.) 

9:05 am                  Fiduciary Training

Open Session          (Points Ballroom) 

A little digging around and I discover that the presenter for this event was one Ashley Dunning, a Partner at Nossaman LLP, one of the “mid-sized hot list” California-based law firms. Parenthetically, our very own Richard Riordan was a name partner in this same firm before he became Mayor of the City of Los Angeles. 

I also got a copy of the 75-Slide Power Point presentation Dunning gave to the Board and assembled multitudes at the session. I wonder how many Board members went to sleep as soon as the lights dimmed and the power point cranked up. C’mon. 

Upon further investigation, I note that Dunning was a partner at Manatt, Phelps, the Democratic Party powerhouse lobbying/law/consulting firm. Notice I said, was, because Nossaman LLP proudly announced in a January 6 Press Release, that she was joining the firm as Partner and Co-Chair of the firm’s Pension and Investments Group. 

Gee. Given the January 6 announcement and the January 19 presentation, does anyone doubt that she has a deal with Matthew Jacobs and is the new fiduciary counsel for CalPERS? Ya gotta love how General Counsel Jacobs wheels and deals beneath the shield of attorney-client privilege. I wonder if the tame Board ever even voted. 

Final disclosure. According to the Marin Independent Journal, Ms. Dunning does not come cheap. She was advising the Marin County Pension Board at $580/hour until her switch to Nossaman, and racked up in the neighborhood of $400,000 in one year’s billings.  

The Takeaway 

CalPERS CEO Marcie Frost is new to the job and had very little transition time when former CEO Ann Stausboll suddenly retired. Therefore she is very dependent on her executive staff, including particular lawyers like General Counsel Matthew Jacobs. 

If history is a guide, the vast majority of the Board is more interested in who gets to be their President and Vice-President and who gets to go off on junkets, than in any serious oversight of their staff. All you have to do is watch a video of their meetings. 

So everyone defaults to doing what the lawyers say. It further seems clear that the lawyers are only interested in what I characterize as a “siege mentality,” a hide-and-seek attorney-client privilege governance model used to make sure no one will really know what they’re up to. That ain’t good. 

For example, the Board recently granted Ted Eliopoulis, their Chief Investment Officer, a huge bonus ($135,000) that was probably impermissible under CalPERS own rules. Ignoring the terrible optics, this was granted just as CalPERS had to admit that the Fund’s return on investment for 2016 was a paltry 0.6%. Anybody see a disconnect here? 

Lordy, Lordy. All greased by the General Counsel. At the risk of being churlish, I note for the record that Mr. Eliopoulis has a JD. Does anyone believe that Ted is going to go against whatever Matthew Jacobs wants? 

Meanwhile, the Board of Directors proudly announces the re-election of Feckner as President and Jones as Vice-President. This is Rob Feckner’s 13^th term as President. Jones scores a mere 3^rd term as Vice-President. Bang up job, guys. 

Personally, I think all of this demonstrates that the staff, led by elder statesman and General Counsel Matthew Jacobs, has a ring in the collective nose of the Board of Directors; they don’t do boo without staff telling them what they should do. 

Or take a look at an even more acerbic analysis of “The Role of Conflicted Lawyers At CalPERS”. 

And I thought the process that CalPERS used to hire Robert Klausner was sleazy. I had no idea what stone wall hiding really was until the lawyers got involved. 

On the other hand, they might just want to be a bit more open and transparent. In a recent federal court case blocking Aetna’s pull-out out of Obamacare in all but four of the fifteen states they serviced: 

“Aetna executives had moved heaven and earth to conceal their decision-making process from the court, in part by discussing the matter on the phone rather than in emails, and by shielding what did get put in writing with the cloak of attorney-client privilege, a practice Bates found came close to ‘malfeasance’.” 

Hmm...

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

THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION-As I write this, rescuers in central Italy are desperately trying to pull victims out from a hotel that was buried in tons of snow by an avalanche. 

The avalanche was caused by a series of earthquakes. 

Although they can be extremely destructive, earthquakes are natural phenomena. 

On January 18, we learned that public education in Los Angeles was buried by a million dollar avalanche in the form of a single contribution to a local school board race by former mayor and billionaire Richard Riordan. 

Riordan is only one of many billionaires who have decided to use their vast resources in an attempt to drown out electoral competition. But there is no precedent for a million dollar campaign contribution in a municipal school board race. 

In the world of Education Reform, the GOP and the billionaires have found common ground in their rampage against the spirit of public education. We all know their names: Walton. Gates. Bezos. Zuckerberg. Individuals whose money buys them tremendous political clout. Consider this from Besty DeVos, Donald Trump’s nominee to become Secretary of Education: 

“My family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican Party…I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now, I simply concede the point. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment; we expect a good and honest government. Furthermore, we expect the Republican Party to use the money to promote these policies and, yes, to win elections.”  

Few confirmation nomination hearings were as depressing as multi-billionaire DeVos’ pathetic stumbling over understanding federal mandates or even basic education questions. This is a woman who never studied education or attended public school or sent her children to public school; she has never held an education position. DeVoss listed as her qualifications for the position in the form of Letters to the Editor and press releases. She claims that she would still be nominated even if she hadn’t contributed over $200 million to the GOP -- that she wasn’t buying the influence she claimed earlier that, well, she was intent on buying. 

In a December, 2010 New Yorker profile on Eli Broad entitled, “The Art of the Billionaire: How Eli Broad took over Los Angeles,” former mayor Antonio Villaraigosa provided this swooning support: “What is Los Angeles -- when they write the chronicles of LA -- without Eli Broad? He can close his eyes and see the future.” 

In the shadow of Hollywood, Villaraigosa parrots one of the great confrontation scenes in cinematic history. When Jack Nicholson’s 1940’s PI Jake Gittes goes up against multi-millionaire Noah Cross (John Huston somehow channeling contemporary Eli Broad) and demands to know why brute power is so important to him, he says: “Why are you doing it? What could you buy that you can’t already afford?” 

Cross gleefully (and horrifically) responds, “The future, Mr. Gittes! The future!” 

And yes, that future is the common denominator that these financial titans are determined to buy for their own and on their terms. 

Broad’s tremendous (and outlandish) financial support has provided the backing for much of LA’s and the nation’s Ed Reform movement through his goofy, self-aggrandizing “Broad Academy” of superintendents. His greatest achievement was forcing the installation of academically and ethically challenged John Deasy to head LAUSD. After his tumultuous reign and disastrous stewardship of its finances and pedagogy, Broad took Deasy back into his secret lair, providing him ample compensation for training other “leaders” of his same mindset. Deasy rarely slinks back into public view, only choosing rare editorial appearances in the safe, rich confines of the Campbell Brown right-wing School Reform publication, The 74 (which also runs its sister LA School Report.) Follow the dominoes. It’s funding is through – sigh -- Betsy DeVos. 

In blue, blue, blue California, you are obviously going to get nowhere if you adhere to a Right Wing social agenda. The neo-liberal Education Reform Democrats eschew that portion of the GOP horror show and pretend that they are not connected to Neanderthal thinking. 

It is no surprise that the billionaires have been very quiet about DeVos’ nomination because they know they are wading into dangerous territory by supporting her. They actually support many of her privatization and charter initiatives, but of course her repugnant other right-wing beliefs are areas they are loathed to get mixed up in. 

This has always been the conundrum for Ed Reform Democrats who share the same Education Reform mentality with some of the most grotesque reactionary figures of the Republican Party. The Democrats who are running for school boards (and here in California, they are all “proud” Democrats) and who garner billionaire dollars may think Trump, DeVos and other Republicans might be wrong about economics, gay rights, Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, environmental policies or taxes, but they believe the Right Wing are geniuses about Education Policy. 

The sole issue that separates the Education Reform Democrats from their GOP counterparts is vouchers, which, ironically, Charters also have huge financial incentive to oppose. 

This was the California Charter School Association’s take on Betsy DeVos after Trump nominated her for the Education Secretary position: 

“We congratulate Betsy DeVos, a longtime supporter of charter schools, on her appointment as Secretary of Education. Mrs. DeVos has long demonstrated a commitment to providing families with improved public school options and we look forward to working with the administration on proposals allowing all students in California to access their right to a high quality public education. We encourage DeVos and the new administration to craft broad policies allowing all students and families to continue accessing the quality educational options they deserve.” 

Monica Garcia, the school board representative of LA’s 2nd District, is a long time Ed Reform favorite of billionaires and CCSA. She is not a Progressive. Right Wing education champions endorse her and her pedagogy. A Betsy DeVos stewardship of education would find quite an ally in Garcia in many areas they both support. Her championing of John Deasy’s pedagogy, charters and privatization has been miserable for the children of LA and stand in stark contrast to the fundamental ideals that Progressive educators value. 

Although School Board President Steve Zimmer’s voting record hardly seems to warrant Riordan’s financial assault on him -- since he actually has supported many of the things Riordan demands -- the name of Riordan’s organization, “LA Students for Change, Opposing Steve Zimmer for School Board 2017,” is just too stupid to be real. But, alas, it is. 

If only there was some Progressive Billionaire who would front an organization called, “Students Opposed to Dick Riordan’s Green Hose Spraying Millions of Students.” That would be an attention getter and as legitimate and accurate a moniker. 

With the advent of Trump’s absurdly plutocratic administration -- whose members’ portfolios and bank accounts boast their vile ability to influence public policy -- Richard Riordan’s fat, gold and diamond-encrusted finger on the scale has coarsened our Democracy. The whole idea and philosophy of Public Education will be lost under the weight of this dirty cash that opposes and oppresses it. 

I’m afraid that there is very little Progressives can do on horseback when confronted with the tanks and artillery Riordan and his billionaire kin can muster. Guerilla fighting in the hills might be our only recourse as we hope for a more enlightened time to re-emerge. 

The billionaire and Republican Party policies are going to define public education from now on. I have no idea how long it will take for us to dig out from the blizzard of grim policies that will smother us. The Supreme Court’s valentine to the rich through their Citizens United decision has also brought us a climate change of crisis in the role of politics and finances. 

Richard Riordan and the other plutocrats are single-handedly buying the “future” they insist we all must endure. 

Grab your shovels now, Progressives.

(Joshua Leibner taught in LAUSD public schools for 20 years. He is a National Board Certified teacher.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

GELFAND’S WORLD--Raphe Sonenshein (photo above) is the learned professor and expert on politics who has been teaching neighborhood council participants about the structure and function of LA city government. You might say that his public lecture series called Civic University is a primer for amateur activists. A couple of decades ago, Raphe (short for Raphael) got involved in the Charter reform movement that ultimately led to the creation of the neighborhood council system. He's been following it ever since. 

The Civic U is educational and it is also fun, largely because Raphe spins yarns about the folks who make the city run, going back to the unruly City Council members of the 1970s, Mayor Bradley, and up through today's zillions of departments and agencies we might want to know about. 

As somebody who has been both a participant and an observer of the neighborhood council system since its beginnings in 2000-2001, I've been listening to the lectures with an interested but quizzical ear. I keep thinking about what we might have done differently. What worked and what didn't? If we could change things, what would they be? 

After the class the other night, I chatted briefly with Raphe and said I had some questions for the final class meeting. Thinking about it a little more, I then suggested to him that I would like to share my questions with CityWatch readers in advance. After all, I've been grinding my own axes here for years, so why not do a little ax grinding for the CU? 

Here goes. 

1. Are the populations served by most neighborhood councils too large? For example, a neighborhood council whose boundaries include 85,000 people is already one-third the size of a City Council district. Wouldn't we be better off if most councils included, at most, 10,000 people? Greg Nelson used to tell us about some study that suggested optimal participation in groups that were at most four or five thousand people. So what's the best trade-off between the current 96 mostly-oversized councils and the level of 4000 people per council, which would require a thousand councils in this one city? 

2. Would the system have been better off if, from the start, neighborhood council stakeholders had simply been defined as the residents of their districts rather than the current broadly based definition with all its other categories (eg: work in the district, own property, have some other interest)? Would it be possible (say through a timely Charter amendment) to make the switch in the near future? 

3. When I lived in an eastern city a number of years ago (hint: it is associated with deflated footballs) the residents explained very seriously that their police and politicians were "the best that money can buy." I don't see Los Angeles as having that level of corruption, nor do I find that attitude among our residents. But I do see a lot of cynicism among people who live here. It comes down to the widespread belief that the developers own the elected officials and get to do (mostly) what they want. First of all, is this cynicism merited? If it is merited, should it be explained as the result of officials who want to do good things but are trapped in a system in which campaign financing is the first necessity? Is there anything we can do about it, such as full public financing? Overall, how corrupt is the city government, if at all? 

4. A critical question that is mostly left unverbalized, but underlies a lot of other discussions: The neighborhood councils have no official power over things such as zoning applications or where parking meters go, or any of the thousands of other choices that elected officials make. Should neighborhood councils have some power(s) and if so, which? 

5. One long-standing gripe of mine is this: City officials say a lot of nice things to neighborhood councils, but they don't do anything to let the wider population of LA know that we even exist. That's understandable -- if more LA residents were involved in neighborhood councils, then the councils would have more political influence and they could create difficulties for elected officials. How can we solve this problem and build our numbers, either through our own efforts or through creating enough pressure on the City Council? 

Bonus question: Did the Neighborhood Council Review Commission fail in its essential mission of evaluating the structure and function of the system and if so, was that because it avoided considering changes that would require a Charter amendment? 

Second bonus question: The Charter language seems to suggest that neighborhood councils are expected to communicate with each other and work together in order to have more influence. Beyond what we've already done in terms of regional and citywide alliances, what can we do to make this happen? 

Cynicism upheld: the consolation prize 

Down where I live, there was a tightly contested congressional election to fill the seat previously held by Janice Hahn. Under the new election system, there was a runoff between two Democrats. Isadore Hall came to the battle with a long-standing career in politics, having previously served in the Assembly and the state senate. His relatively untested opponent was Nanette Barragan, an attorney who served on the Hermosa Beach City Council. Hall lost the election by four percentage points, a real shellacking for a guy who was supposed to be Hahn's heir apparent. 

Hall was out of a job, government-wise. A few days ago, the governor appointed Hall to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board. As news stories explained, the position has a salary of $142,095. I wonder if the governor would have appointed Hall if Hall had been a Republican. Will any of the reform minded Democrats who just got elected to state party committees complain about this kind of conduct?

(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected].) 

-cw

EDUCATION ALARM BELLS-Trump’s been working overtime to enroll anti-cabinet members, a sort of Through-The-Looking-Glass collection of zombie-apocalypse advisors whose prerequisite qualification seems to be whatever their predecessors were not. Anti-intellectual, antithetical, an anti-professional Barbarian horde of ideological battering rams, poised for imminent despoiling of the public purse and the public purpose. 

Everyone knows the drill; it has been well-commented on already. What’s still flummoxing us all is the question:  how to beat back these privateers? 

“Resist” is the catch-phrase du-jour, but it is a description, not a formula: Resist what, who or whom and how? 

Well, Steve Zimmer is clearly the anti-Trump choice of LAUSD 4.  

To resist Trump’s rogue cabinet of government deconstructivists, we must stand against those who would rebrand the public as private, who would catalyze the transformation of public commons into private holdings. 

We must stare down that ideology which would privatize social security, the postal service, our public park service and lands, corrections facilities and military operations, and forsake public health to a profiteering, insurance-industrial complex, as well as deny science and public broadcasting the assurance of unbiased funding altogether. 

And in insisting on that which is rightfully public and accountable to us, we must likewise desist in denying the alchemy of public district schools transformed into public charters. Operating outside of the public eye, without public input and absent public accountability, these schools are public only in the narrow sense that they siphon funds which are public. They are the ideological stepsister of privatization. But their champions are cloaked in disguises. 

Not surprisingly it is hard to see what’s going on in the confusion of revolution, particularly one in which communications have been so deliberately scrambled. It is tricky to distinguish friend from dissembling foe, real from alternate fact. 

But fortunately that same metaphorical blizzard-rope remains strung across the discombobulating swamp just as it ever was, stretching through the years of muck and gas at least as far back as Nixon’s Regime of disinformation and corruption: Follow The Money.  

Remember in 2013 when New York City’s card-carrying member of the 1%, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sent shock waves through a boring little schoolboard (schoolbored?) race on the opposite side of the country? He suffused our hyper-local election with a cool one million dollars from his citadel 3,000 miles away. And why would he do that? Who’s ever even heard of their schoolboard members -- much less had the foggiest idea what he or she does, or even paid the slightest attention to their election? 

Here’s a clue: the budget of Los Angeles’ Unified School District (LAUSD) is larger than that of the City of Los Angeles (CoLA). Moreover, half the number of CoLA electeds – just seven individuals on the LAUSD Board – control that money. And incidentally, they thereby govern the vital, bedrock, foundational process of educating our city’s youngest citizens, and raising them up to be your neighbor. 

Well that multi-million-dollar-laced schoolboard race is back on: it’s 2017 and March 7 is right around the corner. This time, the exogenous sugar daddy is LA’s republican former Mayor Dick Riordan. He is supported now as then, by LA’s own stealth puppeteer and public education foe, Eli Broad. And he’s anted up into the same fast-forwarded schoolboard race that, this time around, sports not just one, but no less than three individual challengers – all of whom are backed by the same ultra-rich, very narrow interests. 

When an election features multiple ideological clones, double- and triple-endorsed by the same billionaire-backers, that’s code, not for strength of support, but for intensity of opposition: Witnessing such big bucks being pumped into the campaign against Steve Zimmer should concern all Trump resistors. 

When the 1% swarm the public Commons they are animated not by a concern for the public, but by their interest in the public monies and by the public policies formed there.  

Bernie-supporters and Trump-resistors should no more permit Betsy DeVos to desecrate the integrity of our nation’s Office of the Secretary of Education than accept any of Zimmer’s challengers to the board of LA Unified. 

Steve Zimmer is the only candidate in LAUSD’s board District 4 who believes in public education.

Voting for Steve Zimmer is what it means to Resist Trump.  

Submit your absentee ballot application for Steve by 2/28/17.

(Sara Roos is a politically active resident of Mar Vista, a biostatistician, the parent of two teenaged LAUSD students and a CityWatch contributor, who blogs at redqueeninla.com) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

LABOR DIGS IN VS. TRUMP--California’s labor laws are stronger than federal regulations in most areas, including the minimum wage, paid sick leave, overtime for agricultural workers and domestic worker rights. The state also leads the national trend for predictive scheduling. (In 2014 San Francisco passed the nation’s first measure that requires employers to inform workers of schedules two weeks in advance; 13 states and other municipalities are currently pursuing the policy.

But it’s not all sunshine, now that fast-food mogul Andrew Puzder has been nominated to be the next Secretary of Labor. Puzder, the CEO of CKE, which owns the Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s chains, is no admirer of California’s labor codes and last year began moving the parent company’s headquarters from California to Tennessee, complaining that “you can’t be a capitalist in this state.” Donald Trump’s nominee is widely regarded by labor advocates as a substantial threat to working standards around the country. The fallout from a Puzder labor department could well reach California.

“We may be big and we may have the Sierras, but we’re not an island,” says Ken Jacobs, who is the chair of the University of California, Berkeley’s Labor Center. “There are very serious challenges.”

But as union membership shrinks nationally and workplace protections have come under attack, California has created labor-organizing models to resist attempts to erode labor standards and impose right-to-work measures —two predicted hallmarks of a Trump administration labor policy.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245 has developed and exported to other states a leadership model that goes beyond the shop floor and trains stewards to engage in an organizing agenda to counter anti-labor attacks and to support local political and contract fights.

The California local, which has a strong presence in the Central Valley and Nevada, created an Organizing Stewards program that recruits stewards, teaches them how to connect with members and trains them in door-to-door canvassing and leadership skills.

Much of it involves on-the-ground training. Just this month the California organizing corps helped Baltimore Gas & Electric workers buck a national anti-union trend to win representation.

Nine organizing stewards went to Wisconsin to join rallies at the state capitol against Governor Scott Walker’s right-to-work policies and to reach out to other workers. Local 1245 also fielded 100 organizing stewards and active members during the 2016 election season to work full time on campaigns across California, Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Ohio to support labor-friendly candidates, says Fred Ross Jr., an organizer for the local who, along with colleague Eileen Purcell, developed the program.

Tom Dalzell, Local 1245’s business manager, views a Trump administration, especially Trump’s Supreme Court picks, with concern, but is resigned to resisting. “I don’t know what it’s going to look like,” he says. “We know we’re going to have to do it.”

Dalzell worries about potential Supreme Court decisions that could permit public employees to opt out of union membership. The only answer, he says, will be counter-organizing in the workplace with one-on-one meetings to explain why an employee should stick with his or her union. “It will be like an organizing campaign,” Dalzell says, of “people who are already taking the message of the union to people who have never had to fight for it or live without it.”

Silicon Valley Rising, a coalition of the Communication Workers of America, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Service Employees International Union Local 521, SEIU-USWW and UNITE HERE Local 19, plus nine community organizations, formed two years ago in this region dominated by tech development.

“Silicon Valley was the poster child for income inequality,” says Maria Noel Fernandez, SVR’s campaign director. The Silicon Valley work culture is famous for its perks — shuttles sent to a tech worker’s front door, chefs serving gourmet meals, game rooms and massages. Those details make for good headlines but hide the gulf between tech employees who earn, on average, $113,000 annually, and the support staff of janitors, cafeteria workers and others, the majority of whom are contract workers who average under $20,000 a year, according to a study by University of California, Santa Cruz researchers. While tech development drives jobs in Silicon Valley, the majority of those jobs belong to service workers that serve meals and clean offices.

Silicon Valley Rising is poised to push the state of California to keep moving forward on labor and immigration standards, and to continue campaigns around employee rights, work-week rules and local minimum wage measures. The coalition is also working with employers to ensure that employees that work on the sprawling company campuses are protected from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities while on the job.

Tech employees—those considered the industry talent— recently joined service workers in a march in front of the data analytics company Palantir Technologies. The protest targeted Palantir’s involvement in technologies that could support Trump’s announced programs of mass deportation and “extreme vetting” of Muslim immigrants. Trump mega-donor Peter Thiel holds the largest share of the company, one of the world’s most valuable venture-capital-backed companies.

The tech workers’ message, says Fernandez, is that “’This is not how we want our talent to be used.’ That’s not the Silicon Valley they signed up for.”

Local action is critical, says Fernandez. Labor has won on wage and work standards in cities, and Trump administration policies will thwart gains at the federal level. “Cities have to be the centers of resistance.”

The University of California system exudes the same prosperous air as the tech sector—but grad students working here as teaching assistants, tutors and lab technicians at 10 campuses in the UC system can make as little as $18,000 annually.

The fight here concerns labor standards—but has other ramifications. Funding for research and research assistants is federal, says Anke Schennink, the president of United Auto Workers Local 5810, which represents 7,000 post-doctoral researchers in the UC system. “Most of our international students are on work visas, so we’re doing education and strategy discussions around what exactly is going on and what we can do.” The local works with the national UAW to press on protecting immigrant post-doc rights.

Schennink is an immigrant from the Netherlands where “a lot of power is in the hands of labor — strikes are a common thing, not unique.” Under-paid post-doctoral students are her rank-and-file but the union’s issues go beyond pay and working conditions, and the local is prepared to defend against attacks on immigrant rights and potential federal cuts that could decimate funding for climate science, clean energy and some medical research.

“We of course have to put together a legislative and political plan with Trump as a factor,” she says.  An October contract win that created family leave and other amenities has boosted union activism and the Trump victory has actually accelerated organizing.

The Oakland-based Local 3299 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union has a similar big-picture perspective. The local organizes front-line health-care staff members who answer phones and check in patients at UC’s 10 campuses, five medical centers and additional clinics, research laboratories and UC Hastings College of the Law. “The cuts to health care will be devastating to our members and leave millions without health care,” predicts Elizabeth Perlman, the local’s executive director.

For Perlman, guaranteeing worker rights in the Trump era means doubling down on the union’s information campaign in the face of anticipated right-to-work initiatives that are legislated from Congress or adjudicated by a Trump Supreme Court. This defensive war will require keeping in close touch with her local’s members, so “the union knows what’s important to them, what connects them to the union, who they are, where they work. It’s focus groups, it’s polling, it’s every piece of data we can collect.” The union, she says, must make hard assessments about how it connects with workers. If Supreme Court decisions give employees a choice as to whether to opt into the union, locals must work to find out what makes members value their union and be willing to participate and pay dues.

UC Berkeley’s Jacobs is encouraged by California’s innovation and energy, but remains cautious about predicting the national impact.

“We have incredible people [and] unions—if anybody can craft a solution it’s us. We should be clear-eyed that people need to fight the changes on a national level— we’re going to also have to figure out what to do as a state.”

(Bobbi Murray has reported on politics, economics, police reform and health-care issues for Los Angeles magazine, L.A. Weekly and The Nation. This piece was posted originally at Capital and Main.) Illustration by Lalo Alcaraz. –cw

ELECTION 2017-“What’s the biggest problem facing LA today, and what would you do to solve it?” That’s the question Mayor Garcetti answered last week in a groundbreaking, single-question interview with the LA Times. 

Groundbreaking?  

Check it out. You’ll know what we mean before you even hit “play.” 

It’s not what the Mayor says in the video but what surrounds him, which are videos of the other mayoral candidates -- eight of the ten, to be precise -- answering the same question. Finally a clean shot for Angelenos to recognize the candidates if they fall over one. 

And the mayoral videos are a hit.  

The 2012 televised mayoral debate posted on YouTube (in two videos) has been viewed collectively 2131 times, and that’s over the course of three years.  

By contrast, the eight, two-minute videos posted on the Times Opinion Facebook page have been viewed collectively 4130 times, and that’s after only ten days. (But that’s not because of the mayor, whose viewership is average.) 

The televised debate, meanwhile, was a disservice to the public, excluding every candidate except for “the Big Four” (“no comment”), based on a criterion the moderator could not bring himself to state on air and which cannot be found on the website to which he directed the audience. 

People are just excited to hear what the candidates have to say -- and they say really interesting things. We look forward to meeting them in person. 

All this is great, but it’s just a start. And heads up to the rest of the press because you’re about to have a scrum of mayoral candidates knocking on your door. Two minutes is the magic number. That’s all we need. However you want to do it.  

But we’ll be taking notes, so….

(Eric Preven and Joshua Preven are public advocates for better transparency in local government. Eric is a Studio City based writer-producer and a candidate for Los Angeles mayor. Joshua is a teacher.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

WESTWATER DTLA--Growing up in the 1960’s in the heart of Los Angeles, I experienced multiple different political movements and their demonstrations ranging from the civil rights protests to the Vietnam War protests.

Then, when I moved to DTLA (Downtown Los Angeles) in the 1990’s to help revitalize the heart of our city, instead of moving to the Arts District as my friends expected me to, I instead chose the area around 5th and Spring.

It was then a decaying old neighborhood that, one hundred years earlier, had been the most important corner in DTLA and the heart of the city. But it was then just a half-block from 5th and Main - a notorious corner that was the entrance to Skid Row as well as being the heart of the largest drug selling district in the world.

And others then too soon came to this area to help fix the heart of our city - and the people living in it. And - in a less than two years, a couple dozen of us who made what happened here, happen the way it happened - had all arrived. And while we had never met before, we were soon all working together.

I bring this up because 5th & Spring ended up being exactly half-way between Tom Gilmore's Old Bank District next to 4th & Main and Izek Shomof's Spring Street district between 6th and 7th and that meant the old heart of the old city had also became the new heart of the new city.

And that helps explain why the starting point of the Woman's March was in Pershing Square. Located just one block west of 5th and Spring, Pershing Square is the oldest park in LA and it had long been a free speech center of the city.

Our neighborhood is also a hub for demonstrations since City Hall and the County, State and Federal buildings are all just a few marching blocks away (as is the LA Times) and a subway entrance is a block away from 5th and Spring, directly across from Pershing Square. And 5th and Spring is also where the Spring Arts Tower has the largest book store in California, the world famous The Last Bookstore.

And that is why the Woman's March first gathered and then started to march from Pershing Square.

And those are the same reasons practically every single march, protest or demonstration in DTLA passes either through or within a half-block of the corner of 5th & Spring.

That then brings us to yesterday's march and what made it unique.

But before I answer one part of your question, I should state I have been politically involved and involved in community affairs since, at least, the age of five.

But I have never once marched in demonstrations or gone into the streets to protest. I have always felt my time was better spent doing the less glamorous and less exciting day to day details of helping make things better.

That, however, doesn't mean I don't - fully and totally - support the rights of people who wish to show what they oppose and what they approve of, through public demonstrations, as long as they remain non-violent. (Though I must confess, back when we were ruled by an overseas King, my ancestors were among those UI who fired the first shots of the Revolutionary War at both the bridges of Lexington and Concord. But things were a bit different then)

So to answer the bulk of your question, yes I feel the demonstrators had legitimate reasons to show the rest of the nation what they were concerned about and what they supported.

And they tried to be on their best behavior as guests in our neighborhood. And that was a first for this neighborhood.

And, yes I agree there was far more of a sense of joy about their coming together here then there was despair over what they feared might happen.

And, yes I agree, many of them came here to have a good time and to enjoy themselves as much as they came out to protest.

But I don't think that in any way discredited their motives. If anything, it showed that these demonstrators were not just the usual suspects, and that they also represented those who don't normally march in the streets.

And, lastly, I will soon be posting more specific details and descriptions of yesterday's events and what may happen next.

(Brady Westwater is a writer and a longtime contributor to CityWatch. He is president of Westwater Films and Media. This perspective was posted first at Quora.com and is used here with the permission of the author.)

-cw

GUEST WORDS--On Saturday, I was proud to join with millions of my sisters in California and across the country to march and make clear that we have the power to advance an agenda rooted in equality, justice, and tolerance for all. It was an extraordinary day where millions of women proved we cannot be dismissed or written off to the sidelines.

I had the privilege of speaking briefly to the more than half a million people who came to Washington, D.C. for the March. Here’s what I told them: while they may have taken the House, the Senate, and the White House, they have not and cannot take away our power.

We have the power to stop this administration from targeting communities of color and deporting millions of people who have known no other home than the United States.

We have the power to create a more perfect union where the law finally guarantees equal pay for equal work, no matter your gender or race.

We have the power to defend women’s reproductive rights and the millions of women who would be left without care if Planned Parenthood is defunded by the Republicans.

We have the power to save the Affordable Care Act and our social contract from policies that would leave millions of people without access to quality and affordable health insurance.

Yesterday was the beginning of a movement where millions of women (and men) rose up to challenge lawmakers in Washington who are trying to take us backward. This movement knows that the arc of the universe is slow, but it bends toward justice -- and it is now our responsibility to continue our work and bend it ourselves.

Remember that your voice is your power. You cannot effect change if you sit on the sidelines waiting for someone else to solve the problems facing your community. Whether you were able to participate in the march yesterday or not, we need you to dig deep from here on out to take ownership of the future ahead of us.

We are stronger when we raise our voices together -- and that is precisely what we did yesterday. When people of all ages, colors, religions, and backgrounds come together, unified in our collective struggle for justice, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.

Let’s make yesterday a beginning. Stay involved -- and we will win this fight in the end. Thank you.

(Kamala Harris is US Senator for California and former California Attorney General. She can be reached here.) 

-cw

@THE GUSS REPORT-The problem with one particular McMansion currently being built in Sherman Oaks is not that it towers head and shoulders above the houses to its north, the ones to its south, and all the houses across from it on the west side of the street except for one equally obese McMansion. 

The problem is that its garage also reaches far lower into the ground because it is subterranean, accessed by a deeply sloping driveway. (Photo above) This is a singularly unique feature when compared to a concentric circle of the 500 nearest single family homes.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Koretz, who authored the city’s porous and ineffective moratorium on McMansions, refused to personally answer direct questions about the property, but denied through a staffer any responsibility for its permit because at the time it was issued, this address was not yet covered by the moratorium. It originally only insulated some communities, including several in the San Fernando Valley…but not this one.

Torn down to make room for the massive McMansion monstrosity was this 1479 square foot, 2-bedroom, 1.75 bath house previously on the lot since 1950.  

The old house sold for an astonishing $620,000 in February 2015. The moratorium was approved in March 2015. A permit for the teardown and construction was not finalized until September 2015. But this particular address was not protected by the moratorium until June 29, 2016, according to Koretz’s office. And the actual teardown and construction did not start until around that date. 

Koretz’s challengers in the upcoming primary point to this situation as another deliberate Koretz failure, influenced by developer money. 

One of those opponents, Jesse Creed, says, “Koretz always takes the easy route through hasty motions and legislative fixes that are worth only the paper they are written on. The toughest issue is under-enforcement, which Koretz has failed to address. This situation of under-enforcement is the developers' dream. Neighbors in my neighborhood, Beverly Grove, have complained to me of houses that are as large as the ones the new rules were supposed to eliminate.” Creed has been endorsed in the race by former LA City Controller Laura Chick. 

Another Koretz opponent, Mark Herd, says, “[Koretz’s] McMansion ordinance had a major garage loophole, and yes it was intentional….I’m sure the past will repeat itself if there’s money in it.” Of these three candidates, Herd is the only one who, to date, supports Measure S, an anti-development ballot effort that has long been a thorn in Koretz’ side. 

“Unbelievable,” a decades-long resident of the neighborhood said while looking at the construction as children played and parents chatted. “It doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb. It sticks out like a mall parking garage.”

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a contributor to CityWatch, KFI AM-640, Huffington Post and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @TheGussReport. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EDITOR’S PICK—(Editor’s Note: You can mix your castor oil with orange juice or vodka but it still makes you gag. The same can be said for corruption at Los Angeles City Hall. You can call it ‘soft corruption’ or ‘moral corruption’ or ‘business as usual’ but the gagging part doesn’t go away. As this guest column mentions, some try to blame pay-to-pay on outdated LA’s Community Plans. We’re not buying it. Taking money … in any form and by any circuitous process from developers whose projects you’re about to vote on is wrong. And, if it weren’t, it’s stupid and clearly demonstrates that you think the people of Los Angeles are fools. Austin Beutner … former member of the LA 2020 Commission … have some thoughts on how we can put a lid on this pay-to-play. It’s worth the 10 minutes it will take you to consider what he had to say.)

A mysterious developer bundles large sums of money from suspicious donors and contributes it to the campaigns of the mayor and several City Council members who then approve, over the unanimous objections of the City Planning Commission, City Hall staff and much of the surrounding community, a controversial real estate project called Sea Breeze. Tammany Hall circa 1870? A remake of “Chinatown”? How about Los Angeles City Hall in 2017.

Allegations of wrongdoing surround the Sea Breeze project are serious enough to spark an investigation by the Los Angeles County district attorney. While many of the allegations involve potential violations of campaign finance laws, what about the elephant in the corner of the room? How did Los Angeles become a place where monied developers can build whatever they want without regard to existing laws or the wishes of the community?

The math on Sea Breeze is simple. The developer’s land in LA’s Harbor Gateway neighborhood was worth about $17 million zoned for industrial use. He donated $600,000, got his land rezoned for residential use and, like magic, the next day it was worth $42 million. Most people have to drive to Morongo to try and turn $600,000 into a $25 million profit overnight.

Los Angeles’ outdated zoning rules and poor planning processes are at the root of this issue. State law requires cities to maintain general plans, which must be updated every five years. The Los Angeles General Plan includes 35 separate community plans that establish legal land-use parameters for the city’s neighborhoods, plus one each for the Port of Los Angeles and Los Angeles International Airport. Unfortunately, most of these community plans have not been updated in 20 years or more. Despite City Hall’s rhetoric about zoning reform and a vision for the future, the plans remain hopelessly out of date.

What happens when Los Angeles tries to move forward with outdated plans? Requests for “updates” — zoning and planning variances — land in the hands of the 15 City Council members. They more or less have the authority to ignore the old rules and decide what projects will be built in their districts, subject to sign-off by the mayor. No project of any consequence can move forward without these approvals.

This “spot-zoning” system gives those who can afford to fill campaign coffers outsized influence over the size, shape and location of new developments in the city, with average Angelenos left out of the backroom cycle of monied interests and City Hall politicians. Is it any wonder developers are the biggest donors to City Hall?

Why is the city gifting $25 million to the Sea Breeze developer and getting back nothing, save for the $600,000 in campaign contributions to a few politicians?

The city and county are raising sales tax rates for funds to address the issues of homelessness and transportation infrastructure in our community. Both issues need to be solved, and it will cost money. But why is so much of the burden falling on the working poor? Won’t property owners benefit from better transportation infrastructure to serve their buildings, and a community with fewer homeless people? Developers already have the benefit of the bargain in Los Angeles, as real estate here is taxed at rates meaningfully less than comparable property in New York.

Is what happened at Sea Breeze unlawful? That’s for the DA to decide. By any moral standard, it is wrong and it’s a terrible waste of economic opportunity for the city. Let’s assume the project should have been approved on its merits and had the support of the community. We know the developer would have paid the City at least $600,000 to get Sea Breeze approved, same as what he gave to the politicians. But he still walked away with $24.4 million in profit, all due to the stroke of a pen in City Hall. Seems pretty obvious the city could get a better deal.

The solution to this:

• Update the city’s community plans. The city should embark on a serious effort to make sure its plans reflect the needs of a city of the future and the input of the community. This will greatly reduce the casino atmosphere in City Hall.
• Restrict the ability of developers to buy favors from City Hall. Several years ago, the Securities and Exchange Commission imposed strict limits on how Wall Street firms and their employees, family members and agents could contribute to city and state politics. L.A. should adopt the same rules and apply them to developers.
• Get a better deal from developers. The city should implement a program to capture for public coffers some portion of the value from the “up-zoning” on large, new projects. This will provide funds to address high-priority needs like homelessness and transportation infrastructure.

The Sea Breeze project and others like it should be a wake-up call. We deserve a transparent and equitable way for land-use decisions to be made in our community. And we deserve to see the benefits reinvested in city services and public infrastructure, not just the pockets of developers and their elected friends.

(Austin Beutner Founder and Chairman of Vision To Learn and former member of the LA 2020 Commission. This perspective was posted earlier at Huff Post.) 

-cw

CORRUPTION WATCH-The reason Los Angeles housing prices are outrageously high will never published by the LA Weekly, the LA Times or any other news outlet. You can be sure you will never hear it from KNBC’s Channel 4's Conan Nolan, Garcetti’s sycophant extraordinaire. Los Angeles residential real estate does not sell for its value as Living Space but rather for the hyped-up value as a Speculative Investment. The result is that Los Angeles homeowners pay a huge Corruption Tax. 

In 2006, Gail Goldberg, then LA’s Director of Planning, warned Eric Garcetti against allowing developers to buy the zoning they wanted rather than allowing the law to set the rules. Eric Garcetti completely ignored Director Goldberg. 

A developer knows he can buy five R-1 homes and then “bribe” for then to be up-zoned to multi-family, allowing him to build 30 to 60 apartments. Sure, he may have to pay an additional $10,000 to $25,000 to Mayor Garcetti’s Fund and kick down some more favors to the councilmember, but in Los Angeles, the developer, and not the law, sets the zoning for land. 

The Need for Families to Park Their Wealth 

If you’re a Family Millennial, you are looking for somewhere to “park” your wealth. Part of everyone’s income needs to be set aside and not consumed for day to day expenses. The question is, where to park one’s income? 

The Pros of Cons of Traditional Places to Park Your Wealth 

Bank accounts do not pay enough interest to make them a good place to park savings long-term. Stocks do well, but in a market rigged for the high-end traders, it’s a serious risk. In the Crash of 2008, some once “ultra-safe” stocks like Hartford Insurance lost over 90% of their value. Whole life insurance can be a very safe place to park cash, provided you deal with an insurance company that is admitted to do business in New York State. If one does not prematurely die, Whole Life Insurance will have accumulated considerable cash value by retirement time and that can become a safeguard in old age. Millions of Americans, however, park most their money in their homes. 

Traditionally, home values tend to increase over time, at least enough to keep up with inflation. The mortgages are usually paid off before retirement, which means seniors can live “rent free” except for property taxes and special assessments. In 1950, the average age to get married was 22.8 years old for men and 20.3 for women. By the year 2000, those ages had increased to 26.8 for males and 25.1 for females. After the Crash of 2008, the age at which the young started families increased to 29 for males and 27 for females (2013 data.) These figures are important because they show that people are starting families and their economic planning about seven years later than the Baby Boomers did. That leaves them less time to accumulate income for old age. 

While typical Baby Boomers will have paid off their 30-year mortgages when they are in their early fifties, most of today’s Millennials will be in their late 50s or early 60s when they finish their mortgage payments. 

When Baby Boomers, many of whom are about to retire, originally put into their homes, it was based on the homes’ value as Living Space. Now, in areas like Los Angeles, the prices of new homes are no longer based on Living Space value but on the Speculative Value to a developer. This is one facet of the disaster which Gail Goldberg foresaw. When developers can just purchase the zoning they want, they know that buying in an R-1 or R-2 area is cheaper than buying into areas which already have been up-zoned. Thus, it makes sense to buy-up detached homes. Their payments to the Mayor’s Fund and to the councilmembers will achieve whatever up-zoning the developer needs. 

In a City not based on corruption, developers would know that zoning sets the property’s use; they would not even try to buy R-1 properties. Had Garcetti heeded Gail Goldberg, today’s families could afford to purchase homes based on their value as Living Space. 

Los Angeles’ Millennial Family has to compete against developers who will bid up the price of a detached home based on its Speculative Value. Even if the family could outbid a developer today, it has to realize that tomorrow another developer can come along and buy up five or ten nearby homes and, after contributing to Garcetti’s Mayor Fund, be able to have the land up-zoned for a four-story condo project overlooking that family’s backyard. 

Residences Purchased on their Speculative Value Result in a Crash 

As more Family Millennials re-locate away from Los Angeles, reality begins to sneak into the housing market. There are fewer people to rent these new apartments or buy those new condos in the sky. 

The birth rate of the Millennials peaked twenty-five years ago. Thus, each year there will be fewer young Millennials moving into dense urban areas. While Los Angeles’ birth rate is currently high enough to out-pace deaths and the flight of the Family Millennials, LA’s birth rate is still dropping. (This is inevitable since the Family Millennials leaving are in the child-bearing age range.) 

Why Economists Fear “Corruptionism” 

There are two types of inflation: There is the normal slow upwards creep of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Since it is slow, people can adjust to a creeping rise in consumer prices and employers can afford to pay their employees a little more so that, over all, the system remains in equilibrium. 

But Los Angeles experiences another type of inflation in the form “corruptionism” which introduces hyper-inflation into the housing market. As we have pointed out, a combination of destroying the homes of poor people and the re-valuation of residential properties for their Speculative Value have resulted in a huge increase in the cost of LA housing – an increase which reflects no increase in actual value. The housing market is based on Speculation, so rents increase in response to price increases based on that Speculation. But employers cannot afford to pay higher wages just because their employees are over paying for mortgages and rents. When housing costs jump 7% in one year, no employer can increase all his employees’ salaries by 7%.   

The increase of housing costs does not reflect an increase in the actual value of these properties as living spaces. A three-bedroom craftsman built in 1920 is not worth any more as Living Space today than it was in 1920, 1960 or 1970. Yet, when one looks at the current mortgages, one sees a monthly mortgage of about $4,000/month on a $900,000 home. Adjusted for inflation, the monthly mortgage in 2017 based on Living Space should be less than $2,000. 

Angeleno Homeowners and Renters Pay a Monthly Corruption Tax 

That means the homeowner or renter is paying over $2,000/month as a “corruption tax.” That is the amount an LA family has to pay to the bank over and above the increase of the CPI. That extra mortgage money paid each month represents no additional value to the property.   

Suppose all the money the homeowner paid in LA Corruption Tax had been invested in the stock market. Let’s be very conservative and assume that the corruption tax is only $10,000 per year. If that money had been invested in 2009, it would show a rate return of 14.315% (not adjusted for CPI inflation.) In other words, a $10,000 stock market investment in 2009 has become $14,315. In ten years, the homeowner would have an extra $140,000! 

We can all figure out our own Corruption Tax rate and how much money we would have if we had been able to invest that money in the stock market. 

Of course, we will all face the financial nightmare when corruption in the housing market again brings down the rest of the economy. That is likely to wipe out stock portfolios as well. The irony is that the closer we get to a crash, the more we should park money in insured federal bank deposits. Unlike equity in a home or stocks, those dollars do not disappear in a crash. In other words, an increase in insured savings is a hedge against the next crash. 

As Keynes knew, liquidity of capital is important to the individual. When the crash starts, you cannot get cash from your non-liquid assets fast enough to save yourself. Thus, money in government insured bank deposits can save a middle class family. But first, that family cannot have parked all its wealth in its home. The only way to avoid that financial trap is to buy a home in states like Texas or Utah or Georgia or Colorado. That way a family does not pay the LA Corruption Tax and has enough money to diversity its investments.

(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.) Cartoon: LA Times. Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.