LOS ANGELES

@THE GUSS REPORT-There are grudging, trudging phases that politicians go through when dealing with guerilla journalists. Often, they provide a window into which direction the story will lead. 

The first phase is to ignore us. The second is when they realize we are onto a story and we have an outlet and an audience. That’s when they call us their friend or employ the pregnant pause and the faint praise, “I really admire your…..passion.” Third, when we nail a story that is picked up by the mainstream media, and we are credited for breaking the story, they go silent and cold as a nuclear winter. And fourth is the thaw when they realize that people beyond their reach are reaching out to us to share their stories. 

Before we launch into 2017, let’s take a quick look back at the 2016 you and I shared. 

In 2016, I contributed 39 articles to CityWatch, amplified by the occasional invitation to talk on KFI AM 640 where the Sunday Morning News humorously bestowed upon me the title, “Eric Garcetti’s Worst Nightmare.” In developing these stories, there were more than a few humorous encounters like when I prepared to exit an LA City Hall elevator and a certain chief of staff was on the other side of the opening doors; someone’s jaw dropped, and it wasn’t mine. Others included awkward overtures and a hearty, guffawing handshake from an elected official who never previously said as much as “hello” to me. 

In February, my article LA’s Hypocrisy on World Spay Day: ‘Backyard Breeders’ Get a Pass showed how city officials are all talk and no action when it comes to controlling the pet population that results in overcrowded pounds that kill thousands of healthy, happy and adoptable animals. In March, I wrote of billionaire hedge fund guru Bill Ackman costing many of his clients their life savings by investing against (i.e. “shorting”) the stock value of LA’s Herbalife while overdosing on investments in Valeant, a dubious Canadian pharmaceutical firm. Since then, Herbalife kept winning in court and in its stock price while Valeant lost half of its remaining value, reaching an all-time low last week. 

As spring approached, I wrote how Time Warner Cable would have little to offer us after the 2016 season in which iconic Dodgers announcer Vin Scully retired, having deprived subscribers of other services of enjoying his last few seasons. Now rebranded as Spectrum, it is the same tired service, at higher prices and virtually no portability while DirecTV launches its lower priced, bundling-not-necessary and completely portable DirecTV Now service. 

In April, I wrote in (Dis)-honorable Mentions at LA City Council how our lawmakers honored a local school whose alumni included what amounted to a rogue’s gallery of former LA Sheriff Lee Baca, former LA City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, former LAPD Chief Darryl Gates and former tennis champ Bobby Riggs. Later, in LA City Council Soapbox Evades its Own Sexual Misconduct Failures I told you the story of how city officials talked about helping sexual assault victims while standing alongside, and completely ignoring the costly sexual harassment settlements of, their colleague Councilmembers Mitch Englander and Jose Huizar. 

In May, I showed in ‘No Kill’: LA’s Big Lie how Mayor Eric Garcetti falsely claimed the city’s animal impounds are no longer killing animals because he simply redefined the meaning of death and adoption. A week later, I showed in Duped Councilman Rationalizes Mayor’s Animal Bamboozle how Councilmember Paul Koretz, LA’s biggest phony on humane issues, rationalizes the fraud to please his wife’s employer….Mayor Garcetti.

Also in May, my Ill-Prepared LA Grovels for a Super Bowl it Won’t Get told how the City of LA, which doesn’t have an NFL team or stadium, groveled for a Super Bowl that it would not, and ultimately did not, get.

In June, I wrote Garcetti Reappoints ‘Arrogant’, Delinquent Commissioner to show the mayor’s disconnect in reappointing Roger Wolfson, the “No-Show Commissioner” of LA Animal Services. He, along with fellow panelist Larry Gross, contributed articles to CityWatch this year, but ironically, none of them were about humane issues. And that’s just the way the Mayor wants it -- experts in areas other than the Commissions to which he appoints people. 

When we got to July, I wrote about a Deputy LA City Attorney named Hugo Rossitter who failed to disclose his outside legal businesses, let alone pay business taxes to the cities of LA and Beverly Hills, in LA Prosecutor, Fake Businesses … and, Why It Matters. 

In August, I launched a series of articles with Herb Wesson: King of the Foreclosure Dance on how the Los Angeles City Council president was continuously on the verge of losing his homes due to decades-long foreclosure troubles, while he sold the public on failed affordable housing and homelessness issues. Wesson later misled LA Times’ City Hall reporter David Zahniser on the origins of his problems, and what he was doing about them. (Photo above: Herb Wesson.)

As late summer turned to fall, I tracked down in Sherman Oaks Gives Tourists … and LA’s Curious … the Bird a wayward peacock named Percival, who was as colorful and overt in his Valley activities as Congresswoman-turned-County-Supervisor Janice Hahn’s campaign flunky John Shallman was in his anonymous online pursuits in Exposed: Hahn Operative Trolls CityWatch.

In the September through November corridor, I showed, starting with Garcetti Playing Dirty Pool? how the mayor removed a heroic LAFD whistleblower named John Vidovich from his post just a few months prior to his retirement for exposing fraudulent fire inspectors, and what role the overtime-gobbling firefighters’ union had to do with it. My big “get” of the year was when the LA Weekly and KCBS picked up on the story after I exposed the LA Times’ original story on Vidovich to be bogus and – perhaps – vindictive. 

As Trump v. Clinton came on the horizon, I took one more jab at the Mayor’s phony humane claims with How Eric Garcetti Falsified 8,807 Pet Adoptions and Worse. 

A day before the November 8 presidential election, I cautioned in Wall Street. Wednesday. Watch Out! that the stock market, were Trump to win, would experience dizzying turbulence. When it appeared Trump would in fact win, the Dow Jones pre-market price dropped almost 800 points, but has boomeranged to unprecedented heights ever since. So I was right about the turbulence, but so very wrong about its duration. 

After a foray into the hurt feelings of the election in Obama: ‘Go Out There and Win an Election’ and Vote Recount: The 3rd Stage of Grieving I attempted to bring some reasoning to Thanksgiving with Thanksgiving: Both Sides Now. 

And finally in December, I delved into dangers of tourists pursuing access to our world famous landmark in Runaround Ryu and Hollywood Sign Danger and how Garcetti, City Council, City Attorney Mike Feuer and City Controller Ron Galperin are in denial about much bigger problems that LA faces in 2017 in City Hall’s Latest Delusions on Terror, Fraud, Fire … and Everything Else. 

In 2017, the LA City Hall and LA County Supervisors’ bubbles may finally burst, and the leaders’ spines will be tested. My predictions and previews are coming next week.

(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a contributor to CityWatchLA, KFI AM-640 and Huffington Post. 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.

PERSPECTIVE-I had a firsthand look of the chaos bestowed on the population by the passage of Prop 47. As almost all of you know, the measure raised the threshold of a felony and led to the early release of many career criminals. 

A neighbor’s house was ransacked and robbed last night. The family was on an errand for a period of less than two hours, not a long time by most measures, but far more than enough time for criminals to do their deed. 

I talked with the LAPD officers who were investigating. When I mentioned there has been a steady increase of property crimes in the community since the passage of Prop 47, the officer piped right up, “We are seeing an influx of thieves from other states. They know the odds of going to jail are slim.” 

There have been steady reports posted to Nextdoor about burglaries in Valley Village. As president of the homeowners’ association, I am acutely aware of this growing problem, which effects many communities in Los Angeles. I have lived here since 1986 and have never before seen such a spike in crimes. 

Many of the crimes are brazen – carried out in broad daylight. Thieves have walked all the way up driveways to break into cars, not simply satisfied to target those parked on the street. That takes some cajones -- and desperation -- a combination that is dangerously explosive and could indicate a propensity for violence by the perpetrators. 

It is bad enough that thousands of professional burglars have flooded the streets after early release; we have also become a magnet for out-of-state talent, as the LAPD officer related. 

The people of California voted for Prop 47. It was supported by the top elected officials in the state. It even had the support of New Gingrich! 

It is time for the state’s voters to reverse this truly misguided policy. It will require a new ballot measure, and, in the short run, legislation mitigating the impact of 47. 

It is also time to build new prisons. Instead of selling bonds to construct an extraordinarily expensive high-speed train, let’s invest in state-of-the-art prisons which have the facilities for addressing and correcting the causes of recidivism. There will always be those who do not respond to intervention – they will ultimately require a lifetime of incarceration, so the capacity must be in place to deal with them as well. 

Opponents to this would claim we cannot incarcerate ourselves out of a growing, statewide crime wave. The converse for that argument is more grounded in reality – we cannot reduce crime by rapidly increasing the supply of criminals, as Prop 47 has done.

(Paul Hatfield is a CPA and serves as President of the Valley Village Homeowners Association. He blogs at Village to Village and contributes to CityWatch. The views presented are those of Mr. Hatfield and his alone and do not represent the opinions of Valley Village Homeowners Association or CityWatch. He can be reached at: [email protected].) Graphic: Jeff Durham/Bay Area News Group. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

LEANING RIGHT--Unlike my counterparts from the Left, I will neither underestimate nor under empathize with those who approach this Christmas and New Year with dread and fear.  There are quite a few reasons to fear a President-Elect Trump, but exploring the source and lessons from where that dread and fear are coming from show promise for our nation...and ourselves:

1) The Russians/Nazis/Racists are coming, and they're out to control and destroy our nation!
Well, well, well...I'd like to see them try.  A bunch of skinheads and Nazis want to start pushing around Latinos, African-Americans, Muslims, and Jews?  Wow.  Now THAT would lead to a butt-whooping if ever I saw one--with the skinheads and Nazis being on the receiving end of that little smackdown.

Furthermore, if the Breitbart bunch are dominated by racists, then they're some of the silliest racists I've ever heard of, because they're dominated by Jewish editors.  Sheriff Clarke, that bad-ass African-American sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin? Not exactly the kind of person I'd expect to tolerate any racist gibberish or crimes.

And the Russkies? Well, any hacking is a serious issue, but weren't we told for so long that the Clinton server and e-mails were no big deal?  So why is any server/e-mail exposure to foreign hacking...now...a big deal?  And are we being played by the President who once derided Mitt Romney that he was focused on the wrong decade?

No, I think that Ms. Clinton lost the presidential election of 2016 all by herself.

2) The Male Chauvinists are coming, and they're out to control and destroy our nation!
Well, well, well...I'd like to see them try.  Eliminate the education and buying power of half our nation, would they?

Considering how the new Trump Administration stands to be filled with many women (including some firmly against Trump over the past election cycle), and considering how the new "first lady" (Ivanka, not Melania, Trump) will push for affordable childcare for single mothers, it's not too likely that women will be shoved out of the workforce.

And virtually all abortions will be legal for a long, long, long time, because even if Roe vs. Wade ever were reversed we'd see 50 states with laws allowing legalized abortion through the second trimester within nanoseconds.  Of course, the question of why healthy babies with healthy mothers needed to have a third trimester abortion would finally be answered.

Although it might be nice to allow and demand that boys become good men, and to allow and demand that girls become good women.  And with the understanding that LGBTQ rights should be upheld, it might be nice to dispel the notion that male and female humans are wired the same, or that one gender is "better" than the other.

3) The Polluters are coming, and they're out to control and destroy our nation!
Well, well, well...I'd like to see them try.  I doubt that this nation is ready to shred its goals for clean water and fresh air, just to make a few greed-bags a few bucks.

Although the debate over what role the U.S. has in Global Warming, er Global Cooling, er, uh, Climate Change would be welcome.  Because while anyone visiting Glacier National Park knows that the glacier for which that park is named has virtually melted away, what we can or should do about it is up for considerable debate.

And as for making a few greed-bags a few bucks?  How about the Green Machine, where a few opportunists have allowed our local and regional utilities to thrash the middle class and their employers with high utility bills and excessive regulations that help a few connected folks get rich while the overall economy is hamstrung?

It's great that Big Oil has to account for its actions.  It's now long overdue for Big Green to do the same.  Perhaps population control and a healthy economy can stimulate environmental reform that REALLY works for EVERYONE.

4) The Christians are coming, and they're out to control and destroy our nation!

Well, well, well...I'd like to see them try.  But which Christians are we talking about?  The ones who accept and support Jews and the nation of Israel more than many American-born Jews do?

Which Christians are we talking about? The ones who enlisted in our nation's armed forces and fought to create and defend democracy and human rights of Muslims and others in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the entire world?

Which Christians are we talking about? The ones who merely want to be left alone and celebrate their religion in peace, while encouraging the same for others?  The ones who believe in charity and kindness to others?  The ones who share followers of both black and white, both Asian and Arab, and both Catholic and Protestant backgrounds?

Well, I'm one Jew who doesn't tolerate any bigotry, or cruelty, or bullying, from anywhere or anyone...and I'm hardly alone.  I've had Christians pray for my eternal soul, and I'll take any help I can get. 

I'm solidly and blissfully aware of what Christmas means.  Yes, it's the pagan/solstice thing that places December 25th as the birth of Yeshua, also known as Jesus, and also known as the Christ. It's not known whether Jesus was born on December 25th, but that's a moot point--it's THAT Jesus was born that matters.

And THAT there is a God to be worshipped who understands the joys and misery of the human condition, because Christmas celebrates a God who lived and died as a human to show God's never-ending Covenant with Humanity.  No floods or rainbows...just a brief life and a painful, horrible death.

So Merry Christmas, everyone, and Happy Holidays to All.  Fear not for what hasn't come to pass, but be ready and confident if bad things do come to pass.

There's no "don't worry, be happy" to be bandied about, but it shouldn't be forgotten that there's room to accept both our personal and national successes AND failures.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.  Life will be filled with joys and battles to be experienced to the enrichment of us all.  And we will say that, yes, we did have the privilege of living in very, very interesting times!

(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.)

-cw

URBAN PERSPECTIVE-On Wednesday, December 21st, the South Los Angeles Homeless TAY and Foster Care Collaborative (Collaborative), along with the Crenshaw Chamber of Commerce and other local partners, will honor the lives of homeless youth who have passed away and those experiencing loss during the holiday season with a prayer and candlelight vigil. 

December 21st is considered as one of the longest nights of the year. Likewise, the month of December is one of the most stressful periods for homeless youth suffering trauma due to a lack of stable housing and a strong support system. 

The Collaborative is gathering more than 100 community members to embrace love and compassion for youth experiencing homelessness, heighten awareness about homeless youth, and offer prayers, comfort, and new beginnings. 

To wrap up 2016, the Collaborative will share advances in the Homeless No More Community Plan to End Youth Homelessness and encourage ongoing commitments to end youth homelessness by 2020. 

“We are taking this opportunity to remember the resiliency of youth and our commitment to end youth homelessness in South Los Angeles,” said Rev. Kelvin Sauls, Chair of the South Los Angeles Homeless TAY and Foster Care Collaborative. “We believe our youth need our focused attention and are taking this evening to connect with them by showing that we care and that they matter to us.” 

With the approach of a colder winter in Los Angeles, the Collaborative also encourages people to join in their Covenant of Engagement, a promise to do something to end youth homelessness: 

• Connect with local agencies in the Collaborative who have specific in-kind needs this holiday season 

• View a list of partner organizations and contact them to volunteer or get more information on how youcan get involved. 

• Offer platforms to dialogue about youth experiencing homelessness. 

• Participate in the upcoming January 2017 Homeless Count 

• Contribute financially to partner organizations to increase resources for homeless youth. 

“We are doing something very profound. We are letting our youth know that we are here to be of service and support. This village is committed to helping our youth achieve a better quality of life“, said Armen D. Ross, President of the Crenshaw Chamber of Commerce. 

The Collaborative’s Youth Remembrance Ceremony will be held on December 21st, from 6 pm, in Leimert Park and is held in conjunction with National Homeless Persons’ Memorial Day, an annual event commemorated in more than 150 cities and counties across the United States.

(The South Los Angeles Homeless TAY and Foster Care Collaborative is a coalition of business, government, nonprofits, and residents working to prevent and end homelessness for South Los Angeles’ Transition Age Youth. For more information, visit the organization’s website at www.southlatay.org.) 

-cw

NEW GEOGRAPHY--The oligarchs’ ball at Trump Tower revealed one not-so-well-kept secret about the tech moguls: They are more like the new president than they are like you or me.

In what devolved into something of a love fest, Trump embraced the tech elite for their “incredible innovation” and pledged to help them achieve their goals—one of which, of course, is to become even richer. And for all their proud talk about “disruption,” they also know that they will have to accommodate, to some extent, our newly elected disrupter in chief for at least the next four years.

Few tech executives—Peter Thiel being the main exception—backed Trump’s White House bid. But now many who were adamantly against the real-estate mogul, such as Clinton fundraiser Elon Musk, who has built his company on subsidies from progressive politicians, have joined the president-elect’s Strategic and Policy Forum. Joining Musk will be Uber’s Travis Kalanick, who half-jokingly threatened to “move to China” if Trump was elected.

These are companies, of course, with experience making huge promises, and then changing those promises to match new circumstances. Uber, for instance, touted itself as a better deal than a cab for both riders and drivers before it prepared to tout a better deal for riders by replacing its own soon-to-be obsolete drivers with self-driving cars.

Silicon Valley and its leading mini-me, the Seattle area, did very well under Barack Obama, and expected the good times to continue under Hillary Clinton. Tech leaders were able to emerge as progressive icons even as they built vast fortunes, largely by adopting predictably politically correct issues such as gay rights and climate change, which doubled as a perfect opportunity to cash in on Obama’s renewable-energy subsidies. Increasingly tied to the ephemeral economy of software and media, they felt little impact from policies that might boost energy costs or force long environmental reviews for new projects.

No wonder Silicon Valley gave heavily to Obama and then Clinton. In 2016, Google was the No. 1 private-sector source of donations to Clinton, while Stanford was fifth. Overall the electronics and communications sector gave Democrats more than $100 million in 2016, twice what they offered the GOP. In terms of the presidential race, they handed $23 million to Hillary, compared to barely $1 million to Trump.

Yet, there is one issue on which the Valley has not been “left,” and that is, predictably, wealth. It may have liked Obama’s creased pants and intellectually poised manner, but it did not want to see the Democrats become, God forbid, a real populist party. That is one reason why virtually all the oligarchs favored Clinton over Sanders, who had little use for their precious “gig economy,” the H-1B high-tech indentured-servants program, or their vast and little-taxed wealth.

Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder with a net worth close to $70 billion, used his outlet, The Washington Post, to help bring down Bernie, before being unable, despite all efforts, to stop Trump. So now Bezos sits by Trump’s side, hoping perhaps that the president-elect’s threats to unleash antitrust actions against Amazon will be conveniently forgotten as an artful “deal” is struck.

For these and other reasons, there’s little doubt that the tech elite would have been better off under Clinton, who likely would have, like Obama, disdained antitrust actions and let them keep hiding untaxed fortunes offshore. Now, they will have to share the head table with the energy executives they’d hoped to replace with their own climate-change-oriented activities.

The tech oligarchs have long had a problem with what many would consider social justice. Although the tech economy itself has expanded in the current period, its overall impact on the economy has been less than stellar. For all of its revolutionary hype, it’s done little to create a wide range of employment gains or boost worker productivity.

To be sure, there have been large surges of employment in the Bay Area, Seattle, and a handful of other places. California alone has more billionaires than any country in the world except China, and nearly half of America’s richest counties.

But for much of the country, notably those areas that embraced Trump, the tech “disruption” has been anything but welcome news. This includes heavily Latino interior sections, home to many of America’s highest employment rates. Overall, the “booming” high-wage California economy celebrated by progressive ideologues like Robert Reich does not extend much beyond the Valley. In most of California, job gains have been concentrated in low-wage professions.

Despite its vast wealth, California has the highest cost-adjusted poverty rate in the country, with a huge percentage of the state’s Latinos and African Americans barely able to make ends meet. California metropolitan areas, including the largest, Los Angeles, account for six of the 15 metro areas with the worst living standards, according to a recent report from demographer Wendell Cox. Meanwhile, the middle and working class, particularly young families, continue to leave, with more people exiting the state for other ones than arriving to it from the, in 22 of the past 25 years.

Even in Silicon Valley itself the boom has done little for working-class people, or for Latinos and African Americans—who continue to be badly underrepresented at the top tech firms as many of those same firms aggressively promote diversity. A study out of the California Budget and Policy Center (PDF) concluded that with housing costs factored in, the poverty rate in Santa Clara County soars to 18 percent, covering nearly one in every five residents, and almost one-and-a half times the national poverty rate. Since 2007, amidst an enormous boon, adjusted incomes for Latinos and African Americans in the area actually dropped (PDF). 

Much of this has to do with change in the Valley’s industrial structure, which has shifted from manufacturing to software and media. The result has been a kind of tech alt-dystopia, with massive levels of homelessness, and housing costs that are prohibitive to all but a small sliver of the local population.

With a president whose base is outside the Bay Area, and dependent on support in areas where jobs are the biggest issue, the tech moguls will need to find ways to fit into the new agenda. The old order of relentless globalization, offshoring, and keeping profits abroad may prove unsustainable under a Trump regime that has promised to reverse these trends. In some senses the Trump constituency is made up of people who are the target of Silicon Valley’s “war on stupid people.” Inside the Valley, such people are seen as an obstacle to progress, who should be shut up with income supports and subsidies.

So can Silicon Valley make peace with Donald Trump, the self-appointed tribune of the “poorly educated”? There are two key areas where there could be a meeting of minds. One is around regulation. One of the great ironies of the tech revolution is that the very places that are home to many techies—notably blue cities such as San Francisco, Austin, and New York—also tend to be the very places most concerned with the economic impacts of the industry.

Opposition to disruptive market makers in the so-called sharing economy like Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb is greatest in these dense, heavily Democratic cities. What’s left of the private-sector union movement and much of the progressive intelligentsia is ambivalent if not downright hostile to the “gig” economy. Ultimately, resistance to regulations relating to this tsunami of part-time employment could be something that Trump’s big business advisers might share in common with the techies.

More important will be the issue of jobs. It may not work anymore for firms to lower tech wages by offshoring jobs or importing lots of foreign workers under the H-1B visa program, since Trump has denounced it. IBM’s Ginni Rometty, who had been busily replacing U.S. workers with ones in India, Brazil, and Costa Rica, has now agreed to create 25,000 domestic jobs. Other tech companies—including Apple—have also been making noises shifting employment to the United States from other countries. Trump may well feel what “worked” with Carrier can now be expanded to the most dynamic part of the U.S. economy.

If the tech industry adjusts to the new reality, they may find the Trump regime, however crude, to be more to their liking than they might expect. Companies like Google may never again have the influence they had under Obama, but many techies may be able to adjust. As long as the new president “deals” them in, the techies may be able to stop worrying about Trump and begin to embrace, if not love, him.

(Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com. … where this piece was most recently posted. He is the Roger Hobbs Distinguished Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University and executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His newest book, The Human City: Urbanism for the rest of us, will be published in April by Agate. This piece first appeared at The Daily Beast and was published most recently by New Geography.) 

-cw

VOICES--Whenever there is a discussion of overly generous public sector pension plans, the first thing you hear is "yes, but they don't get Social Security.”

They don't get Social Security for a very basic reason: they haven't paid into it. When that statement is made, the tone suggests that the public sector person believes getting Social Security is somehow comparable to, or better than, their public sector pension. It most certainly is not! It is much worse. And just thinking this way demonstrates how ill informed many of these folks are. 

Let's look at what a recipient of Social Security receives: 

First of all, you can't retire and collect any Social Security benefits before the early retirement age of sixty-two.
Then, the maximum amount you can get from Social Security in 2016, if you retire early at 62, is $2,102 a month, or $25,224 a year. If you retired in 2016 at full retirement age of 66, the maximum benefit is $2,639 a month, or $31,668 a year. This is the maximum. No one can make more than this retiring at 62 or 66 years of age. This is what someone who has earned the Social Security maximum pay for their entire career can draw out of it.

Note that the retirement age is older than for public sector workers. Note that the amount anyone can receive is lower than public sector workers earning less for their entire careers receive through their pension.

Here's another very significant difference. A public sector worker who retires at 50 to 60 years old can collect pension benefits from the first employer, and take a new job from another employer without jeopardizing benefits from the first job. Not so with Social Security. If you start collecting Social Security at 62 and take another job, you can only earn $15,720 before your Social Security Benefit is reduced. They reduce it by $1 for every $2 you earn over the $15,720 limit. Once you reach full retirement age of 66 years old you can again work without reducing Social Security benefits.

Public sector Defined Benefit pension plans are clearly better than Social Security -- in retirement age, benefit amount, and program flexibility. Any time you hear "we don't even get Social Security,” take it on. There is not a person alive who wouldn't take a public sector pension in place of Social Security.

(Jef Kurfess is a Cal graduate and lives in Westlake Village.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

GELFAND’S WORLD--It's easy to become despondent about the right wing war against science. It's been exposed in books and in countless blog posts. There is a lot of truth to the existence -- and danger -- of the unrestrained attacks on scientific practice. The world is descending into global warming and its effects are not entirely predictable, yet there are those who continue to deny. In addition, there are those who oppose the proper teaching of modern biology due to its foundational theory of evolution. That's the downside, but as the infamous year 2016 heads to a finish, it's worth considering the bright side of things. Science is continuing, and an enormous amount of progress is being made. 

We might begin the discussion by considering a seminal event, the 1836 creation of a library of medical texts that served the office of the U.S. Army Surgeon General. It grew and was moved around over the next century or so, most notably in 1866, to the same Ford's Theater where Lincoln had been assassinated. People were opposed to the idea of the theater being reopened for plays, so the government took the building and placed its collection of medical books there. The Library, eventually known as the National Library of Medicine (NLM), came to its new location in Bethesda, Maryland in 1962. Incidentally, one of those involved in the creation of the new library was Senator John F. Kennedy, who got to see its opening after he became the president. 

Within a few decades, the growth of computer technology and then the rapid expansion of the internet allowed for an equally rapid expansion of scientific communication. In the 1970s, the Library created Medline, an online search tool that was available to a few medical libraries. In 1986, the Library, demonstrating that it did not lack for a sense of humor, released a computer program called Grateful Med. It allowed anybody with a desktop computer and a dialup modem (remember those?) to go online and search for articles of interest. At the beginning, you had to write to the NLM in Bethesda and ask for the program disks, which came to you by mail (remember mail?). The program worked in the pre-Windows environment, and users had to pay to use the system. By the 1990s, it was possible for anyone, at any place in the world that had a telephone line, to look up the latest findings in most any scientific field. 

By the late 1990s, online searches of the scientific literature were available as a free service. The online system is called Pubmed, and the jargon, "do a Pubmed search" is familiar to pretty much all life science researchers. 

It's hard to explain how great was the effect of Pubmed on the ability to do science in a knowledgeable and intelligent way. The best I can do is to remind people of a certain age what life was like before we had Google searches or what playing music was about prior to iTunes and the smartphone. The before and the after were whole different worlds. 

The expansion and widespread acceptance of the internet as a part of our lives resulted in the migration of scientific journals to the online realm. There are still a lot of journals that put out print editions, but most have some sort of online presence. One result of digital efficiency is that new results go online quickly. The NLM picks up the information on new publications within the week and puts them in its Pubmed database. 

This isn't just theory, but actual result. We had a paper accepted in final form by an international journal on December 9. When we bothered to check it on Pubmed a week later, it was already listed on the search engine. 

Because knowledge is available at the click of a button, it's possible to design experiments more quickly. What used to take two weeks -- trying to look things up in the brick and mortar library -- is now a task that can be accomplished in five minutes on your laptop keyboard. And when you've done the search, you can download abstracts or even print out entire research papers on your desktop printer. 

The result of these informational advances is to make science itself more efficient and more effective. 

The other big change is that automated laboratory systems for sequencing DNA and finding RNA allow for the accumulation of the kind of data that are opening the view into how living systems work, right down at the submicroscopic level. There is enormous complexity in currently available biological data, but it can be dealt with and, to a certain extent understood, even at the level of a laptop computer running Excel. 

So where am I going with this wordy introduction? Let me offer one example from personal experience. We were interested in the effects of a toxic chemical on cellular function. In particular, we wondered if we could see any changes in the expression of any of the genes. (You know, that process where DNA is copied into something called RNA, a mechanism called transcription.) 

In living memory -- at least the memory of some people still living -- this was impossible to do. The tools did not exist. Then it became possible to analyze the effects on a few genes. You had to know which genes you were looking for, and the whole process could take as much as a month, but you could find things out. 

More recently, it became possible to send the RNA collected from cultured cells to a testing lab and within a week or two, receive back an email listing the effects on every single known gene. By doing this, we found that out of the approximately 25,000 genes available to the human cell, there were a few dozen that were particularly affected by this one known chemical. 

We were not alone in doing this kind of research. Other researchers developed methods for rapid DNA sequencing that allowed clinicians to look for mutations particular to a particular condition or disease. To do this kind of work, you need to have samples from lots of people (some having the disease and others without it). Then you get DNA sequence data from all of those people and look for differences that fit one group but not the other. 

Think about what I just said. At one point, some audacious people suggested that we sequence the entire human genome. It was a daunting prospect for those who chose to engage, but through advancing technology, the project was finished within a few years. Now, it is possible to sequence many samples in parallel and compare them against each other. 

This is one of the most promising areas for current research, because it provides the possibility of defining some diseases at the ultimate causative level. There are certain genetic disorders such as sickle cell anemia where the genetic defect has been known for a long time. Other diseases such as cancer can be the result of many genes interacting in a complex way. Over the past 20 years or so, many of the defects and changes that lead to cancer have been discovered. There is still lots of work to be done, because there are complex interactions among these factors, but the understanding of how the disease begins and progresses is building. 

Science is making progress. Let's consider a couple of snapshots in time. Running a Pubmed search on the category cancer yields a few citations from the early 1800s. Apparently the curators have been photographing articles from very old journals and making them available right along with modern studies. One of the earliest is from a journal called Medico-Chirurgical Transactions and is from December 23, 1828. The article has a rather unusual title by modern standards: Two cases of fracture of the thigh-bone taking place without any violence, in which a diseased state of the bones appears to have been the predisposing cause of fracture, and concurring with cancer in the breasts in both patients. 

The author, Thomas Salter, ESQ, F.L.S., explains that each of the two women suffered a spontaneous broken bone, high in the thigh, in the absence of a major violent event. Both are also described as having had breast cancer, although there is no additional detail. We can surmise that in an era without X-ray and where little was actually known about the cause of disease, the spread of cancer to the bone several years after the initial onset was not something that doctors were trained to look for. And if they were to look, there would have been little or nothing they could do about it. 

The other snapshot is today's edition of Pubmed in which the search using the term cancer yielded three and a half million citations. Taking only the most recent citations, we can find an article titled (don't panic when you read this. It's not on the test) Association of single nucleotide polymorphism re6983267 with ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer. Without going into detail, this is a study which locates a single mutation in a single spot in the genome, and shows that the mutation correlates to a certain type of cancer and a certain medical condition. This understanding comes from being able to sequence samples from numerous people quickly and inexpensively. 

This is the beginning of a new era in which researchers will look for specific cures for specific genetic mutations. At the least, the information will guide the development of targeted treatments. 

As I mentioned above, these are two citations out of nearly four million. Most of the citations are from recent decades and taken as a whole, represent huge progress in medical science. Compared to modern knowledge and methods, that surgeon of 1829 might as well have been doing archeology on old bones in terms of developing insight into disease causation. 

So here is the good news: In spite of the anti-science prejudices of some of our politicians led by all too many corporate lobbyists, we are making progress in science. Even if American science is stultified by Republican committee chairmen in congress, the rest of the world will continue. In addition, medical science will probably face less congressional wrath than climate science, so even in America, we will continue. 

By the way, Pubmed searches for heart disease yield more than a million citations, and searches for terms such as arthritis yield their own hundreds of thousands of hits. Mankind is making progress, and luckily it has little to do with the political winds, other than that politicians can provide funding or cut funding. 

Molecular biology, which has come so far, has led to attempts at molecular medicine, and out of molecular medicine has come all those new drugs with names ending in mab. The mab is short for monoclonal antibody, and is this generation's approach to targeting specific molecules on the surfaces of specific cell types. For some things, monoclonal antibodies really work. They didn't even exist when many current scientists were getting started. 

But the current generation of treatments is just the beginning. New research into something called microRNAs (miRs for short) may lead to the next generation's approach to therapy, maybe even paired with carefully chosen stem cells. But that's a subject for another year.

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

-cw

SKID ROW-In the Court of Public Opinion, LA City Councilmember Jose Huizar was released early from a six-month probation period due to a sentence reduction based on “time off for good behavior,” which was to end January 31, 2017. (Photo above: Councilman Huizar with author General Jeff.) 

This “punishment” stems from Huizar’s initial support for a proposed microloft project in Skid Row which would’ve converted buildings (through adaptive reuse zoning designations) previously owned by Salvation Army and used for well over 60 years to provide housing and social services to countless homeless people who reside in this area, commonly-known as “the homeless capitol of America.” 

In a Zoning Administration hearing at City Hall in June of this year, Huizar’s staff representative publicly conveyed the councilmember’s support for the project even though there was strong and contentious opposing testimony from the Skid Row community. The current owner, architects and land-use consultants of the proposed microloft project were all in attendance. 

With an extensive delay in the ZA’s decision, mostly due to the need to research a long-standing Wiggin’s settlement clause, no decision was reached that day. 

About a month later, members of the Court of Public Opinion convened and Huizar testified that he “thought everyone was in support of the project” and “this is the first I’m hearing of any opposition.” After a brief deliberation, Huizar was immediately sentenced: his “People’s Champ” title was immediately vacated with no resistance by the defendant. 

It was first rumored in September that a decision on the microloft project had been reached, but nothing could be confirmed. Finally, in October, the Court of Public Opinion learned there was “official movement” on the project. The owner and his representatives “formally withdrew” their application and requested that “no further action be taken” on file number ZA-2015-2843-ZAD. 

Ding-dong the Wicked Witch is dead! 

With other local matters affecting homelessness, such as Proposition HHH and other tax-based ballot initiatives in the air during that time, the temperature between Huizar and the Skid Row community went ice cold. It was rumored that polar bears in Alaska were jealous of the “daily, below-zero-type freezing temperatures.” 

Members of the Skid Row community went to City Hall themselves and researched the “microloft file” and were able to confirm and clarify the status of the project. Soon, the Court of Public Opinion was contacted regarding a new hearing of determination on Huizar. 

Without delay, the Councilmember’s good standing in Skid Row resumed without further comments from either side. He was immediately released from probation and his “People’s Champ” status returned and reinstated. (Wow, who’s this guy’s lawyer?) 

Now that the $1.2 billion dollar HHH homeless housing initiative has passed and LAHSA’s next “Homeless Count” is fast-approaching (next month), a more cohesive level of communication between Councilmember Huizar and his constituents in Skid Row will be critical if significant strides in “reducing homelessness” across Los Angeles is to happen anytime soon. 

With the pending formation of a Skid Row Neighborhood Council and the final determination as to whether LA will land the 2024 Summer Olympics both happening in 2017, Skid Row will need the “People’s Champ” to rise to the occasion. These matters and more will greatly impact homelessness across the entire City of Los Angeles moving forward. 

If Huizar gets all of this right, he could be the next Mayor of Los Angeles in 2021.

(General Jeff is a homelessness activist and leader in Downtown Los Angeles. Jeff’s views are his own.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

STATES FIRST LANGUAGE IN DECLINE--How are Californians going to save Spanish?

Yes, I know that a call to preserve the Spanish language might seem ludicrous in a state whose very name comes from a Spanish romance novel. Nearly half of us are either from the Spanish-speaking world, or trace our heritage there. We constantly hear Spanish—in our neighborhoods, our workplaces, and in our media; an estimated 38 percent of Californians speak Spanish (the second highest percentage after New Mexico). In the U.S. more than 37 million people now speak Spanish, up from 11 million in 1980.

And yes, my question about saving Spanish may seem daft now, as America’s deranged politics pit Trumpian xenophobia, with its fear of being overrun by foreigners and their languages, against liberal triumphalism about growing diversity.

But—and I speak to that small, hardy tribe of Americans who still prefer to be ruled by facts and not fears—the realities of immigration, education, and language acquisition put the lie to the notion that Spanish has nowhere to go but up. To the contrary, there are clear signs that the Spanish language has already begun its decline. Which is why Californians, who have long benefited from our state’s bilingualism, should think now about how we are going to preserve it.

Spanish is confronting what might be called the “Three Generation Death” law of non-English languages here. German, Italian, and Polish all but disappeared after three generations—a first, immigrant generation that learned some English, a second, U.S.-born bilingual generation that lost its proficiency in the non-English language over time, and a third generation that grew up speaking English only, and knew the old language only by studying it.

It’s possible that Spanish in 21st century California may prove to be a little more durable, given the undeniable cultural power of the language and the geographic (and now digital) proximity of the Spanish-speaking world. But it’s far more likely that Spanish will simply become the latest and largest tombstone in the language graveyard that is America.

At root, this is less the story of the decline of Spanish than it is the familiar tale of immigrants and their descendants integrating enthusiastically into American life.

Census statistics and Pew Research Center analysis tell the tale. While nearly 80 percent of all people who identify as Hispanic (and are age 5 and older) spoke Spanish in the previous decade, that number is expected to fall to about two-thirds by 2020. While 25 percent of Hispanics spoke only English at home in 2010, that figure is estimated to reach 34 percent in 2020. Here in California, the trend is most evident in our schools, where the numbers of English-language learners who speak Spanish has fallen to 1.1 million, from nearly 1.4 million a decade ago.

Spanish’s decline is likely to accelerate even as the percentage of people who trace their heritage to the Spanish-language world accelerates. To a great extent, this reflects the law of the three generations. While 61 percent of first-generation Latino arrivals to this country are Spanish-dominant and 33 percent are bilingual, some 69 percent of third-generation Latinos are English-dominant, and 29 percent are bilingual.

Other trends also will hurt Spanish. Even before the U.S. elected a Mexican-slurring bigot threatening a border wall, immigration to the U.S. from Mexico was at or below net zero, and immigration from Latin America was in deep decline. That’s unlikely to change, given growing middle-class prosperity, lower birth rates and higher education levels across much of Latin America. In this country, the U.S.-born constitute a rapidly increasing percentage of people of Spanish-speaking heritage. Greater integration of families is another factor; more than a quarter of Latino babies have a non-Latino parent.

The Spanish-language media are already grappling with the pressures of this change. Univision helped create Fusion, an English-language network, to woo the rising generations of English-speaking Latinos. (More recently, the network has repositioned itself to focus on millennials of all backgrounds). But there is likely to be considerable carnage among U.S.-based Spanish-language broadcasters and newspapers, which have been losing audiences as more Latino adults consume their news in English. Also troubling for such media: Surveys suggest that the percentage of Latino adults who get their news in both languages is also declining.

At root, this is less the story of the decline of Spanish than it is the familiar tale of immigrants and their descendants integrating enthusiastically into American life. Another branch of the story involves the unrivaled and growing power of English as our planet’s dominant tongue. English proficiency is on the rise in every corner of the earth—as the language of global commerce, culture, and technology. It’s also a wonderfully democratic language, without the divisive gender or class distinctions of Romance and other languages, without the tricky tones of Asian languages, and without the complex grammatical constructions that make German and Russian such slogs.

Californians should welcome the trend. Our more homegrown, more English-speaking population should be more cohesive, and thus have a greater chance of better governing itself. But English’s rise also poses important questions for California, because of our state’s special interest in the Spanish language. It would be good for the Golden State if we found ways to stop the decline, and preserve Spanish in our state.

It would be good for the Golden State if we found ways to stop the decline, and preserve Spanish in our state … Spanish is at the heart of the history of California.

The reasons for such preservation go far beyond the desire to honor the heritage of those Californians of Spanish-speaking ancestry. Spanish is at the heart of the history of California. It’s not merely that we were a Spanish colony founded by Spanish missionaries. Our state itself was founded in Spanish, as you’ll see if you look up the records of California’s original 1849 constitutional convention in Monterey and realize that was a bilingual event, with translation by W.E.P. Hartnell. (Fittingly, one of California’s greatest community colleges, a Salinas school that’s good at educating native Spanish speakers, today bears his name). For the first 30 years of our state, the constitution required that all laws be published in Spanish and English. (The San Francisco anti-immigrant forces that wrote the openly racist 1879 constitution changed that).

Preserving Spanish would serve the present and the future as well. There’s big money to be made if we can increase trade with a Spanish-speaking world on the rise. And it would be a huge step-up for our education system to make Spanish a core requirement. Right now, you can graduate from a California high school without taking even one course in a foreign language. And the UC and Cal State systems require only two years of foreign language for admission. That borders on the criminally negligent, given all we know about the good that learning another language does for our brains.

In November, California voters approved Prop 58, but that modest measure merely removed some bureaucratic barriers to teaching California students in languages other than English. Spanish needs much more, including state requirements and investment so that instruction is available to all. Your columnist is very grateful to have attended Pasadena private schools that made Spanish a full academic subject, with the same number of class hours as math and science and English, from grades six to 12. California would be much better off if that was the standard statewide.

If we preserve Spanish, we’ll have a comparative advantage over the rest of the country, where the language doesn’t have the same history and is more likely to die out. Indeed, if we do this right, Spanish could become a special force in California, distinguishing us and binding us together.

And with that happy thought, I wish you Feliz Navidad y Prospero Año Nuevo.

(Connecting California Columnist and Editor, Zócalo Public Square, Fellow at the Center for Social Cohesion at Arizona State University and co-author of California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It (UC Press, 2010).

-cw

RANTZ & RAVEZ--As we approach the Christmas and Hanukkah season we gather with family and friends to celebrate the many blessings and opportunities we all have to share in the Great Land of America. Family gatherings with plenty of beverage and food and conversations and those thoughtful and sometimes unique and unusual gifts. Like the traditional Fruit Cake we receive from Aunt Mary. 

This year is another of those infrequent times in the calendar when Hanukkah and Christmas come together as the eve of Christmas is the beginning when we light the first candle for Hanukkah. Interesting how the calendar brings us together at this very special time of the year. 

While we should all enjoy the happiness and love of this special season, our state elected officials will really enjoy the salary increases they have received courtesy of the California taxpayers. Those hard working people who go to work and bring home the money to live in a residence and provide for their families. 

No matter your economic situation, we are all feeling the pinch on our income. There is rent or a mortgage and utilities and taxes and car payments and insurance and school clothing and all the rest of the expenses for a family living in the Southern California region. With condo and apartment rents running well over $3,000 and home expenses in the thousands of dollars, who is helping you and your family? The simple answer is no one.+++++++

When you pay your monthly living expenses, think about the 4% salary increase our state elected officials recently received courtesy of the Citizens Compensation Commission. Our state elected officials were and continue to be the highest paid state representatives in the nation. Governor Brown’s salary has increased from $182,789 to $190,100. State legislators increase from $100,111 to $104,115 and the Assembly speaker and Senate president pro temp will receive a salary of $119.734. The newly appointed attorney general Xavier Becerra will leave the $174,000 base salary as a Congressman and earn $165,126 as the California Attorney General. We all wish a very Merry Christmas to all of our State Elected Officials.

+++++++

The City of Los Angeles can always find unique ways to spend your hard-earned tax dollars.

Reports show that there is an estimated 1 to 3 million feral cats roaming the streets and alleys of Los Angeles on a daily basis. How the city came up with this number is interesting. What formula did they use to justify this number? With this in mind, the city wants to spend $800,000 to try and figure out what to do about the situation of roaming cats in Los Angeles. While I love animals, I find it interesting that the city can justify spending $800,000 to examine the Feral Cat Population in LA. The director of Animal Services Brenda Barnett reported that her department does not have a report at this time. I guess they will have a report once they spend the $800,000.

+++++++

If you think that $800,000 is an amazing amount of tax dollars to spend on an analysis of the feral cat population in Los Angeles, you will love the next idea of the LA City Council when it comes to spending or may I say squandering your tax dollars. This time the council wants to use taxpayer’s money to start savings accounts for kindergartners! 

A council committee is exploring the options of establishing a children’s savings account program for the approximately 72,000 kindergartners who enroll in the LA Unified School District each year. City Councilman David Ryu is supporting the program and encouraging his colleagues to support it. Between $50 and $100 will be given to each of the 72,000 kindergartners to start the savings account. Is it the responsibility of the taxpayers or parents to start savings accounts for boys and girls who start kindergarten?

+++++++

If you need money for the holidays and want to put your motorcycle up for collateral, there is a new game in town. 

Traders Loan and Jewelry is now loaning money on motorcycles. This is a new and interesting way to obtain holiday money. If you are in need of holiday money and want to put your motorcycle up for the loan, contact Traders Loan and Jewelry. They are located at 18505 Sherman Way in Reseda.

+++++++

Traffic Citation Amnesty is available from now thru March 31, 2017 

If you have an unpaid traffic ticket that was due by January 1, 2013, or if your driver’s license is suspended and you are making payments on a ticket, you may qualify for traffic amnesty from October 1, 2015 until March 31, 2017 and get your license restored. Go to www.courts.ca.gov/trafficamnesty for additional information.

+++++++

Thank you Betty Breneman for your kind comments on my recent article on the holidays and family memories. I am glad you enjoyed the walk down memory lane. 

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to each of you and your families. May this Holiday Season bring you and your families and friends great happiness and the best of times in 2017.

(Dennis P. Zine is a 33-year member of the Los Angeles Police Department and former Vice-Chairman of the Elected Los Angeles City Charter Reform Commission, a 12-year member of the Los Angeles City Council and a current LAPD Reserve Officer who serves as a member of the Fugitive Warrant Detail assigned out of Gang and Narcotics Division. Disclosure: Zine was a candidate for City Controller last city election. He writes RantZ & RaveZ for CityWatch. You can contact him at [email protected]. Mr. Zine’s views are his own and do not reflect the views of CityWatch.)

-cw 

YOUR BUDGET VOICE--The Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates (NCBA) are your voice at the City Budget table and are continually pushing for balance with the City’s budget. The Budget Advocates are currently at work on the 2017 NCBA Budget White Paper to be released next Spring … and, need your help! 

The 2016 White Paper (“Building Trust In City Hall”) focused on six key topics, infrastructure, homelessness, education, transportation, sustainability/resilience and transparency with every city department. 

These topics were chosen because so many city residents responded to the Budget Survey and questioned liability exposure and large settlements, inefficient personnel procedures and practices, lack of stakeholders input, failure to incorporate up‐to‐date technology and system consolidations in various city departments, as well as the dearth of interdepartmental communication and cooperation. 

Over the past year, the focus of the community has shifted completely. With a new national administration coming into office, the citizens of Los Angeles are concerned with its influence on LA’s budget and possible funding cuts. 

Los Angeles and California receive billions of dollars in Federal funding and with President-Elect Trump’s threat to cut funding, there are a lot of city departments at a standstill waiting to see how this plays out once he takes active office. 

But, possible federal influence on the City’s budget is just one of the issues facing the 2017-2018 plan and influencing the Budget Advocates Charter-called-for advice to Mayor Garcetti. We need you to tell us how you think the City should spend your money. What your priorities are. How you think the City should handle the looming Federal threat. 

Watch for the 2017 Budget Survey and a guide to how you can make your voice heard … coming soon at CityWatchLA.com … and to a neighborhood council near you. 

(Adrienne Nicole Edwards is a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. She can be reached at: [email protected].) 

-cw

TRUMPWORLD--A few weeks after I arrived in Lebanon to volunteer with Syrian refugees, I learned that my plan to offer an English class for both Lebanese and Syrian youth in the small town of Bqarzla was so sensitive as to require an audience with the village priest. 

After Sunday mass in the village church, a fellow volunteer, Samer—Syrian, Orthodox Christian—and I were escorted to the high-ceilinged sitting room of the priest’s spacious quarters next door. A group of men wearing suits and smoking cigarettes—village notables and friends of the priest—had been invited to join us. They greeted us amiably and invited us to sit.

The priest, or Abuna—an honorific meaning “Our Father” in Arabic—eventually emerged from an interior room, also in a suit, and bearing a pot of strong coffee, and commenced to smoke a cigarette. After we had dispensed the usual pleasantries, he asked me the “American” question that, prior to the election, I heard frequently. “Inti ma Trump walla Clinton?” (“Are you with Trump or Clinton?”) “Akeed mu ma Trump,” I said. “Huwweh majnoon.” (“Of course not with Trump. He is crazy.”) 

Abuna did not visibly react to my remark, but he and his friends launched into a spirited discussion in Arabic, which I only partially followed. Afterward, Samer told me that they had been opining that immigration was ruining America and that Trump would set things straight. 

The conversation echoed others I had been privy to, focused on tensions around immigration in Akkar, a remote district in northeastern Lebanon on the Syrian border. A common complaint here is that the Syrians are taking jobs and hogging resources provided by the government and international aid organizations. Some Lebanese Christians I spoke with also told me they view the primarily Sunni Muslim refugees as a demographic threat. Lebanon has refused to hold a census since 1932 lest the findings upset the precarious balance in its political system, which parcels out its top leadership posts based on religion. 

Clearly Abuna and his friends saw in Trump someone they believed would be sympathetic to their plight. Fortunately, our political differences did not prevent Abuna from granting my English class his seal of approval. 

Bqarlza is tucked away in the hills of Akkar. The occasional army helicopters overhead are a reminder of the war next door, but the village itself is sleepy, surrounded by the olive groves that drive much of its economy. If you changed its language and the architecture, the Maronite Christian enclave could easily pass for a small Texas town. The streets outside of Bqarzla are littered with shell casings and sometimes bird carcasses left by the local men who go out shooting every morning before dawn. Young people hang out at a couple of pool halls and a pizza shop. The neighbors take note of whether you went to church on Sunday. 

The backdrop of many conversations I’ve had is a contentious history between Lebanon and Syria that dates back at least as far as 1976, the beginning of Syria’s three-decade occupation of Lebanon, shortly after the outbreak of the Lebanese civil war. There remains a complicated and sometimes fluid map of loyalties for and against the Syrian regime in the Lebanese political system and society. 

Perhaps because I am an American, perhaps because there is a sense of recognition across complicated political landscapes, these conversations frequently come back around to the U.S. election. Local Lebanese acquaintances in Akkar told me before the election that they liked Trump because he is a zelameh (real man) or that they didn’t like either Trump or Clinton, but at least Trump would be something different. I might have heard the same things in any number of small towns back home. 

Local Lebanese acquaintances in Akkar told me before the election that they liked Trump because he is a zelameh (real man) or that they didn’t like either Trump or Clinton, but at least Trump would be something different. 

A week before the U.S. presidential election, the Lebanese parliament settled on their own new president after a two-year standoff, and the battery of celebratory gunshots turned the streets of Akkar into a mock war zone. As supporters of Lebanese president-elect Michel Aoun commenced their jarring festivities, I was driving home from teaching a remedial French class to Syrian kids. 

In the olive groves and empty lots in and around Bqarzla, Syrians live in scattered clusters of tents provided by the UNHCR, known in English as the United Nations’ Refugee Agency. Many of them, although registered as refugees, are not legally authorized to be in the country, leaving them in a tenuous position and largely restricted from traveling and working. For a couple of months in the fall most of them work the olive harvest, a brief bright spot before winter comes, the work dries up, and the rainy season tests the soundness of the plywood and plastic sheets reinforcing their makeshift homes. 

From UNHCR, they get basic assistance with food and shelter. From the Lebanese government, they get the right to send their children to the local public school, which is largely abandoned by the Lebanese who send their children to private schools if they can scrape together the funds. NGOs like the one I volunteer with fill in some of the gaps, including supplemental classes to help children who are struggling in Lebanese schools. 

In an English class I was teaching at one of the informal refugee camps the week before the election, we practiced saying what we did and didn’t like. Several of my Syrian students listed Trump among their dislikes, along with flies and traffic. 

Mohammed, a quiet teenager from Aleppo with an easy smile, echoed my assessment of then-candidate Trump: “Huwweh majnoon.” (“He is crazy”). 

The night before the U.S. presidential election, Samer and I dropped by one of the refugee camps in the olive groves outside of Bqarzla. We sat on the floor and drank black tea and mate with a group of young refugees from Hama. 

It was cold and windy outside, but inside the tent, the family had set up their sobia, a wood burning stove, and the small room was soon warm enough that I took off my jacket. We didn’t talk about the election or the war in Syria. The next morning, I stared at the television in a stupor as Trump made his acceptance speech, interrupted briefly by one of Lebanon’s frequent power outages. I suddenly felt very far from home. 

During the next day’s adult English class with the refugees, I joked that I needed to look for a husband from Canada. 

“Why not Syria?” they joked back. “There are no problems there.”

(Abby Sewell is a freelance journalist based in Lebanon. She previously reported for the Los Angeles Times before relocating to Lebanon to volunteer with the NGO Relief & Reconciliation for Syria. This piece first appeared in Zocalo Public Square.  Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

15 CANDLES, 96 POINTS OF LIGHT- (Editor’s Note: This month marks the 15^th anniversary of the certification of Los Angeles’ first Neighborhood Council. CityWatch is celebrating with a multi-month celebration of introspective articles and view points on how LA’s Neighborhood Councils came about, how they’re doing and how their future looks. This perspective by Anastasia Mann is such an effort.)   

When I first read about the concept of Neighborhood Councils in the Los Angeles Times some 15 years ago, my first thought was "finally.”  

In my heart I knew that this idea was likely a direct result of the fervor for secession by the movements in Hollywood, The Valley and San Pedro. I was a secessionist.  

The reason these attempts at secession were defeated is because the entire voting populous of the city was able to vote. Had only the actual communities in question been voting separately, as in elections for city council representatives, etc., it's more likely the splits would have prevailed.  

(The passion for secession was born because the "city fathers" were only focused on Downtown. That still remains as issue for some today.) 

So the NCs were born to give the “stakeholders" in each geographical area more input into local government. More "say so.”  

I first served as Area 5 (Outpost) chair to Hollywood Hills West NC. The following year I was elected president, taking the reins from founder and first president, Dan Bernstein. Dan did the hard work. He had it rough. A bit of an unruly board in a system governed by a new city department barely getting its feet wet: The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, aka: DONE.  

Our board has 23 elected representatives, which includes nine area chairs and ten issue committees, and five officers on the executive committee. We are the largest geographical NC among the 96 in the Greater LA Area.  

The get-go was slow -- not for lack of interest, but due to lack of training, direction and publicity via the city. And of course the continuous creation and application of rules that made no sense. A bit like kindergarten. An NC member across the opposite end of the city gets his hand in the "funding" cookie jar, then all us kids have to face the wall. Very frustrating. Trying to fund projects is like jumping through hoops on fire with the lion.  

But the good news is that we have indeed come a long way. The system is still riddled with red tape and an excessive number of rules which can be baffling, but today we are actually getting things done. Very good things. HHWNC has one of the finest boards that I have had the pleasure of overseeing in my entire 12 year experience. The resumes of our board members threaten any Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton could muster.  

From at one time having zero stakeholders attending our monthly meetings, we now have numbers ranging from 25+ into the hundreds. Yes. Hundreds.  

We've been blessed to have the cooperation and support over all these years from CD4, under both Tom LaBonge and David Ryu. Also from the deputies for CD13 and previously CD5. Moreover, we now have active participation from our State Assembly members for AD 46 and 50.  

We work closely with LAPD, LAFD and even DWP. We help to get streets repaired, city services improved, support schools, LAPD and Fire Department programs, our library, theatre arts projects.....and play a major role in planning and land use issues, particularly when it comes to density and major developments within our congested boundaries. We've had to battle controversies that include protecting Runyon Canyon from commercialization to controlling the out-of-control situation with the Mini Tour bus issues. We listen to developers as well as those opposed to them. 

We ask questions, request Improvements, meet over and over again until we can find consensus. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But our rate of cooperation is very high. In certain limited cases we cannot beat City Hall, but that's another story. We try to protect historical heritage sites as well.  

Current issues facing and frustrating all our communities include homelessness, traffic, more traffic, party houses, the impacts from Hollywood Blvd on the adjacent residential units, crime (of course,) and more tour bus problems...on and on.  

But we are planting trees in Runyon Canyon, protecting the off leash dog privileges by keeping it a wilderness area and not a sports venue, getting pot holes and street lighting fixed, advising our city council reps on the quality of life issues facing our stakeholders. Every day there seems to be a new issue.  

Our board members each hold their own meetings to bring every imaginable issue to the full board table. That's four to 20 meetings per month! There are hundreds of hours being devoted to our communities every month. Most of the time, these volunteers go unnoticed and under-appreciated. The entire NC system and existence is still a mystery to most Angelenos. This must change.  

Unless the media gets behind what we do and gets the word out, the system may be doomed. The public must demand that we keep these volunteer voices active, loud and clear. Many members of the media have stepped up to the plate, like CityWatch; and KNBC with the Tour Bus Coverage; the LA Times with the 8150 Sunset "Gehry" project and Runyon Canyon; and the Beverly Press. They all have an interest in what we do. 

But our own story about what we do -- how and why -- still needs to be told. We should have everyone -- resident, business owner and employee, property owner or renter, club member and worshipper signed up as stakeholders within every single one of the 96 NC's. Numbers talk.  

We hear rumors that some city officials would love to eliminate the NC system. DONE (now Empower LA) is understaffed and overwhelmed. HHWNC is fortunate to have support from our Council District. But many NCs do not enjoy this sentiment; rather, they are faced with the opposite.  

The more everyone gets involved the better future for us all. Because, frankly, we are all in this together.

(Anastasia Mann is president of the Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ALPERN AT LARGE--At this time, there appears to be two choices for those of us living in the City of the Angels:  Enjoy the Show, and just get used to being lied to while your neighbors either don't vote and/or complain about things while doing nothing ... or leave.  Because telling the truth and spending the taxpayers' money well?  That's just in the movies. 

Much of the problem is that "representative democracy" and "civics" and the like is too often relegated and dismissed as "nerd-talk", and much of the problem is that we're all so exhausted with our jobs, families and personal crises that, well, who has the time to keep up with all the corruption and chicanery of local and state government?  

So let's go over two big lies, shall we?  And not just, "That's life in the big city" but real whoppers that will really affect the lives of many Angelenos: 

1) The LAUSD Board, flush with last November's financial surge, just gave the middle finger to LAUSD students and their families. 

That big change in the school year to move the end of the summer break closer to Labor Day? The nice compromise that saves energy bills and the quality of life for the school district, students and parents?  The reasonable preservation of the school year that starts the week before Labor Day and allows most of August (and its high air-conditioning bills) to be part of "summer"? 

Gone. 

In the dead of night, the LAUSD Board showed they lied to us when they said they would listen and that they cared about the needs of parents and students. 

Yep, we all now know that the LAUSD Board, who clearly did NOT promote this vote, did a nice whipsaw and punked the daylights out of their paying constituents ... and didja notice this unannounced change in schedule occurred AFTER the November elections, and AFTER they got their money from the trusting voters? 

But perhaps this is what happens when you give those with a history of lying and misspending our money a blank check ... they realize they can punk you, hurt you, slap you, kick you in the crotch, punch you in the nose ... and yet they know you'll come back for more. 

And for those who, like the lying and treacherous LAUSD Board member Scott Schmerelson, changed their minds because they were "concerned" that kids would be pulled out of district-run schools and enrolled in charter schools that started earlier, lemme give you a hint (and my kids go to charter schools): 

This move will only encourage a GREATER exodus of parents who truly LOVE their kids to go to charter schools, because charter schools want to give parents a choice--and these parents will do what it takes to both have a summer with their families and make them study hard during the summer to be prepared for their AP and honors classes. 

It's creeps like the LAUSD Board that truly, sincerely, brazenly, makes us all wonder if a new Trump-led federal Department of Education is just the thing we need to slap down these insulated miscreants who would take our money and then slam us with this treasonous move.   

School choice has just made a great leap forward, because this can and should be "Exhibit A" as to why more money, and more centralized power, is the last thing that families and societies should do for their school boards. 

2) The Pension Crisis--it ain't going away! 

Oh, how those of us who don't read CityWatch, or listen to the radio, or read a newspaper, or go online to find out what's really happening in local and state politics, really wish we would just SHUT UP and GO AWAY about this whole "pension issue". 

I mean...just LOOK!  The sun is still rising and setting, the roads are usually working OK, and things are still all fine in the big picture, so what is this doom and gloom about "pensions". 

Well, maybe if enough middle-class families have their utility bills go up enough, they'll start ignoring this pension issue as mere "blah, blah, blah" and realize that maybe there's some relevance to this issue, after all.  

As fellow CityWatch contributor Jack Humphreville recently noted the LADWP retirement plans are both expensive to maintain and underfunded. 

So we should all just FORGET about funding of old/unrepaired infrastructure unless we pay even higher utility bills. Because those bills are going to folks who stand to enjoy virtually the same amount of retirement income that they got while they were working. 

Nice deal--those retire earlier than the rest of us, and will live life richer and happier than the rest of us.  Fair, right? 

And this pension thing is hardly limited to the LADWP. All over this City and State, we're seeing this problem at the city, county, and statewide levels.   

Occasionally, we see cities going bankrupt.  Occasionally, we see projects and first-responder funding get halted. And sometimes, we see exposes in other states (like in Dallas, TX) when the police/fire pension plans achieve critical mass. 

Perhaps we'll see massive walkouts of public sector employees.  Perhaps we'll see elections won or lost based on these issues. 

But so long as we keep feeding the fire with our tax/ratepayer dollars, and so long as we keep re-electing the insulated leaders who know that--in the end--we'll just continue to "take it" then these lies will just keep happening. 

So maybe we shouldn't worry so much, or scream about so much, Trump the anti-Christ and last November's election results. 

Because the real horror story is that last month we threw away all evidence that Californians, and particularly Angelenos, have any fiscal sense whatsoever. 

And the politicians and public sector union leaders all know it...and will act accordingly.

(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.)

-cw 

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-It should not be so hard, really, to finally stop the mansionization of Los Angeles neighborhoods. On paper it should be a snap for the four precedents I describe below. Yet, time after time, whenever City Hall decision makers close the front door to mansionization through motions and ordinances, they open up the backdoor through bonuses and exemptions. These lethal loopholes have so undermined every anti-mansionization ordinance that they end up allowing the very McMansions that they purport to stop. 

Four anti-mansionization precedents. 

First, the Los Angeles City Planning Commission approved a set of guidelines called Do Real Planning. One of its principles is explicitly anti-McMansion. 

NEUTRALIZE MANSIONIZATION: Neighborhoods zoned single-family deserve our protection. The most pervasive threat they face is the replacement of existing homes with residences whose bulk and mass is significantly larger than the street’s current character -- sacrificing greenery, breathing room, light, and air. Let’s be the champions of a citywide solution to prevent out-of-scale residences. 

Second, the Los Angeles City Council has legally adopted many official planning policies that protect residential neighborhoods from mansionization. For example, Objective 3.5 of the General Plan Framework Element states: “Ensure that the character and scale of stable single-family residential neighborhood is maintained, allowing for infill development provided that it is compatible with and maintains the scale and character of existing development.” 

Third, when City Council offices have conducted constituent surveys or when they tally communications from the public regarding mansionization, a whopping majority of these comments consistently call for stronger regulations to stop McMansions. Furthermore, at City Planning Commission and City Council public hearings on ordinances to restrict mansionization, most of those who offer testimony call for stronger ordinances, especially to count garages as part of a house’s overall square footage. 

Fourth, a May 2014 City Council motion directed the Department of City Planning to cleanup the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance by removing the bonuses and exemptions that allowed mansionization to continue. The intent of this Council motion could not have been clearer: 

“The by-right FAR for the smaller lots should be reduced to .45 to ensure that all R-1 lots are covered by the same zoning regulations… Exemptions for attached garages appear to result in out of scale and out of character development. They should, therefore, be removed from the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance.” 

Despite all of these precedents, the City Council has one again opened up the backdoor to mansionization by re-inserting the exact loopholes that their own Council motion instructed them to remove. Despite compelling testimony from community advocates -- who easily outnumbered boosters of loopholes three to one -- the Chair of the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Committee, Jose Huizar, reinstated two important loopholes. 

Without any debate or discussion, he simply announced that attached garages would again be excluded from floor area calculations and that houses on lots smaller than 7,000 square feet could be built out to 50 percent of lot area, not 45 percent. In one barely audible sentence he added back 700 feet to the size of houses that the Department of City Planning had removed in response to many community meetings and endless emails, phone calls, and letters. 

But, this Councilmember’s action then triggered a citywide push by anti-mansionization groups from many Los Angeles neighborhoods, as well as the Conservancy. Their last minute lobbying did pay off, and the full City Council again removed the loopholes. Nevertheless, no one knows the final action of the City Council when the amended Baseline Mansionization Ordinance and Hillside Baseline Ordinance have their second reading in January 2017. Will the mansionization lobbyists again prevail through their backdoor deals? Or, will the community groups and the Conservancy maintain sufficient pressure to prevent the City Council from, once again, backsliding by opening up the back door? 

Trappings of democracy.

The outcome apparently depends on intense counter-lobbying from those who support the guidelines of the City Planning Commission, the legally adopted planning policies of the City Council, the motions of the City Council, and the super-majority of Los Angeles residents who have supported anti-mansionization legislation.

While we certainly have the appearance of democracy in Los Angeles, as long as some elected officials reject their own adopted motions, guidelines, and policies to help a small group of real estate speculators, support for the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative will grow. If voters adopt this legislation in March 2017, it can foil these repeated corrupt backroom deals that undermine local democracy. These shady deals not only turn this country into a dollarocracy, but they cement the very collusion between the public sector and private commercial interests that now seamlessly stretches from City Hall to the White House. 

(Dick Platkin is a former Los Angele city planner who reports on local planning issues for City Watch. Please send any comments or corrections to [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EASTSIDER-If you are a residential customer of the City of Los Angeles, you are familiar with the Black, Blue and Green trash containers that we use on a weekly basis. God bless the Department of Sanitation, which charges us a pretty penny on our DWP Bill for their services. Yes, that’s right, our DWP bill -- even though the DWP has nothing to do with the Department of Sanitation. 

Anyhow, if you are a commercial entity or large apartment complex, you are exempt from these charges. They can hire whoever they want to pick up their trash and dispose of it. I hesitate to mention that this is essentially a rare “free-market” solution in our City of Angels. 

Well, full disclosure, there was one little hiccup where the Department of Sanitation got caught charging apartment dwellers the fee even though they didn’t receive Sanitation Department services. But what the hey, right? 

Well, that’s about to change. Huizar and the Sanitation folks are in cahoots over commercial and apartment building waste removal. 

Hello, Jose Huizar. 

Only in the City of “the Angles” do the politicians simultaneously pick our pockets and praise themselves for the act. Recently, I have been giving our very own “God’s Gift to the East side,” Jose Huizar, a break. I don’t know why, maybe I am just numb from the number of humongous land use projects he’s slammed through his PLUM Committee. 

However, last week, in his weekly email blast, there was a whopper that even I couldn’t let go. Here’s the quote from the Councilmember’s very own “dual” Newsletter: 

“Today the L.A. City Council unanimously approved our game-changing Zero Waste L.A. program, which will implement a complete overhaul of commercial and multi-family waste collection and dramatically increase recycling throughout the city. 

The program, which Councilmembers Paul Koretz and José Huizar introduced as a motion in 2010 and worked on during Huizar’s time as Chair of the Energy & Environment committee, will also ensure fair pricing, improve service and working conditions and help us meet our zero waste goals for Los Angeles. Councilmember Nury Martinez helped usher this long-working policy as an advocate and the recently appointed chair of the E&E committee. 

While 70% of L.A.'s waste comes from commercial and apartment buildings, this new program aims to reduce landfill disposal by 1 million tons per year by 2025 and reduce waste by 65% in all 11 of the City’s new service zones! 

The program will also decrease food waste and provide all Angelenos with Blue Bin access, no matter where they live or work. The City of Los Angeles has the number one curbside single-family home recycling program in the nation, and now our commercial and multifamily recycling program is well on its way to becoming its equal. Thank you, Don’t Waste LA and all our partners!” 

Holy moly, what a crock! 

A Solution in Search of a Problem. 

This issue goes all the way back to the days of Tony V colluding with the Department of Sanitation in an attempt to extort tax money from us under the guise of being “green.” In one of those PR flack’s poster dreams, the Sanitation Department printed up a Fact Sheet, with pretty green colors and a logo about “Green Love is In the Air.” Of course, buried in the pretty paper was an admission that the City had already met its mandate for solid waste diversion -- in 2002! 

The issue really got going when our very own PLUM Committee, Jose Huizar and that master of persiflage, Paul Koretz, made their motion in 2010 (CF 10-1797 and a bunch of sub-motions.) This would be the motion Huizar proudly declaims in his recent newsletter, the one that got me all revved up. 

Depending on who you believe, the impetus of all this was the Bureau of Sanitation making a power grab to bring in money, or a benign City Council trying to regulate the “wild west” of those nasty free enterprise waste hauling companies. You choose. 

The Sanitation Bureau Proposal. 

Sanitation’s proposal had two basic concepts -- first, dividing the City into 11 collection areas, and second, setting up one exclusive waste hauler per collection area by way of franchises. To make the idea attractive for bidders , these franchises would be for 10 years with two additional five-year extension options, for a total of 20 years of exclusivity. 

In case you didn’t think it was all about the money, the Sanitation proposal included two elements: 

1) “Establishment of a Franchise Administrative Fee (in addition to or supplementing the existing AB 939 Compliance fee) to provide full funding for the administration and operation of the new system, including development of a Franchise Section in Sanitation” 

2) “Potential for an ongoing franchise fee and one-time payments as General Fund revenues.” 

Of course the City can’t simply be that honest, so their stated reason for all of these major changes was “combining multi-family and commercial waste collection with the goal of maximizing diversion, routing efficiencies and improved air quality.” Note that nowhere in here is any mention of law changes or other external mandates to change the way trash hauling for commercial and large apartment complexes had always worked. 

The CAO Fights Back. 

In an unheard of bit of pushback, the City’s CAO argued against this power grab for money. Instead, he proposed a “non-exclusive Franchise” method of regulating the commercial and multi-family refuse collection market. 

Their main objection to Sanitation’s proposal was that “it significantly reduces the City’s leverage over the waste handling market, negatively impacts haulers and customers as expressed by various stakeholders, and is not timely in generating much needed revenue for the City.” 

Digging into the weeds, in a couple of amazingly honest reports by CAO Miguel Santana, there was a detailed analysis done of the legal hurdles and practical alternatives to regulation. His first report, an 80 page document, is a great read. 

OMG, Huizar and Koretz freaked out -- how can you extract big bucks if there’s no exclusivity? After a pretty good food fight, there was even a minority report that went along with the CAO’s recommendation. 

While everyone had a good time arguing, the CAO issued a second report, this time a succinct 17 pages. He didn’t back down at all, and still recommended a non-exclusive system.

So Why Did It Take So Long for this ‘Victory’? 

You will note that the date of the CAO’s second report was November 2012. That’s right, four years ago! Just as Miguel Santana noted, the City had to go through a five year notice period to implement their exclusive franchise system. That’s right, five years that the City was deprived of money which could have helped offset the general fund deficits and/or helped to pay for unfunded pension plan liabilities. 

That’s why I am saying that Huizar’s declaration of victory is nonsense -- notwithstanding the fact that the LA Times was too kind in their coverage of the City Council’s adoption of the plan. 

So we’re left with higher costs, more regulation, bigger fees, and a whole new bureaucracy for Sanitation. Way to go, Jose!

(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.

WHAT LA CAN LEARN FROM PORTLAND--If you thought Wells Fargo’s fake account scandal was bad, get a load of this. Wells Fargo is one of six banks keeping the private prison industry in business. 

We know a lot about the private prison industry. We’ve found that private prisons increase the chances of people returning to prison and encourage mass incarceration. But we’ve always wanted to follow the money—so that’s what we did.  

Our new report, The Banks That Finance Private Prison Companies, uncovers the banks that provide financing to the two largest private prison companies, GEO Group and CoreCivic (formerly CCA). The companies rely on Wells Fargo and other Wall Street banks for money to build new prisons, get huge tax breaks and expand their control of the criminal justice system. All the while, the banks profit from charging interest and fees. 

Private prison companies are licking their lips after Donald Trump’s victory. So are investors. Fortune magazine called CoreCivic “the biggest winner of the election,” since the company’s stock shot up more than 40 percent the next day. 

Now we know who else would profit from Trump’s “law and order” policies and plans to deport millions of immigrants. 

By providing loans, credit and bonds to private prison companies, Wells Fargo and banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have been complicit in mass incarceration and the criminalization of immigration, and they stand to profit even more. 

But we’re fighting back. 

The Portland City Council is currently considering a plan to stop borrowing money from banks like Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase that do business with private prison companies. Nationally, the #ForgoWells campaign is urging cities to cut ties with Wells Fargo because of the recent scandal and the bank’s involvement in the private prison industry and the Dakota Access Pipeline. 

Support these campaigns and push your city to divest from the banks that keep the private prison industry in business. We need to be innovative in the Trump era, but even more importantly, we need to work together.

(Donald Cohen is the founder and executive director of In the Public Interest, a national resource and policy center focusing on privatization and responsible contracting. This piece was posted first at Capital and Main.) 

-cw

YOUR BUDGET VOICE--The Budget Advocates (NCBA) are a committee of concerned citizens that represent the voice of LA’s citizens. Co-chaired by Jay Handal and Liz Amsden, the main goal of the NCBA is to amplify stake holder concerns by bringing them to the attention of the City Council, Committees and Departments to encourage approaches that will both balance the City’s budget and improve communication between City departments and the best interests of the people of Los Angeles. 

As a taxpayer and upstanding resident of our City, your input is vital and we want to hear from you. 

Please take our Surveys and sign up for our mailing list at www.NCBALA.com;  ‘Like’ us on Facebook at www.Facebook.com/LABudgetAdvocates; and Follow us on Twitter at @BudgetAdvocates. 

We need your active participation because you … every one of you … are the heartbeat of the City and we are your voice. 

If there is a Budget Issue you would like us to look into, please send your question and/or suggestion to Adrienne Nicole Edwards at [email protected] or Jacqueline Kennedy at [email protected].  

Participate in our weekly surveys and checkout our blog 'Money Mondays' and "Budget Thursdays" starting this January right here on www.CityWatchLa.com. 

(This article was provided by the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates. For questions or comments … or, for more info: [email protected] or [email protected].)

-cw

LA COUNTY WATCH--So crammed with hypocrisy is the motion by LA County Supervisors Sheila Kuehl and Hilda Solis to create a five-year Countywide Initiative on Women and Girls (“WGI”) that it will be a miracle if a lightning bolt doesn’t shoot down from the Heavens upon the motion’s passing. (Photo: Diana Zuniga above left.) 

For months, literally thousands of women and girls have been grieving openly about the proposed Women’s Detention Center in Mira Loma, which is opposed by more than seventy organizations, including NOW and the Women’s International League for Peace; CHIRLA and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the ACLU and National Lawyers’ League, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and on and on.  

Concerned citizens have been working day and night to stop a prison which, apart from being so far away that it will break apart families, will also endanger the lives of girls and women and other vulnerable populations because of its location in a region with a high incidence of valley fever.   

When the director of Californians for a Responsible Budget, (CURB), who in her capacity represents seventy organizations opposed to the proposed detention center, tried to be heard on the topic of Mira Loma, Supervisors Kuehl and Solis couldn’t be bothered to listen. (Photo left: Diana Zuniga addressing County Supervisors Sept, 2015) 

“Board of Supervisors?" the CURB director said 90-seconds into her testimony.  “All of you all that are talking to each other right now instead of listening to our call to action. Supervisor Solis, Supervisor Kuehl, can we listen just for one second. Thank you.”   

A few sentences later she had to call out Supervisors Kuehl and Solis again for carrying on a side conversation. (Lest that kind of conversation be considered an anomaly, watch this clip).  

“The Mira Loma jail will be a four-hour one-way trip for a family that lives in Lynwood,” Supervisor Solis said, in a posting on her website on September 4, 2015. “It is hard to see how these women will have sufficient access to visitors, programs and medical care.” 

Unless the first action of the Countywide Initiative on Women and Girls is to kill Mira Loma, it will exist as a monument to hypocrisy.

(Eric Preven is a CityWatch contributor and a Studio City based writer-producer and public advocate for better transparency in local government. He was a candidate in the 2015 election for Los Angeles City Council, 2nd District. Joshua Preven is a CityWatch contributor and teacher who lives in Los Angeles.)

-cw

DEEGAN ON LA-A few days ago at a County Board of Supervisors hearing where the supervisors unanimously voted on two motions designed to provide support to the homeless, Mitchell Katz, head of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, declared, “I can actually cure homelessness -- the cure is a house.” But neither motion included a house. 

Realistically, the top priority in approaching the issue of homelessness is to diligently and relentlessly address the plight of the mentally ill homeless. Housing will not be their cure. Nor will knowing that a “state of emergency” has been declared. Those are exterior remedies. An internal restructuring is the only way to fix the suffering of the mentally ill homeless. Their “home” is what goes on inside their heads and their “cure” must be medical attention that opens the door to helping them achieve some balance. 

This is something the County Department of Health Services attempts to do in programs like HOME which addresses the needs of the homeless mentally ill using teams of professionals that go out searching for the mentally ill homeless. 

Would the Supervisors like to make a motion to triple the number of deliverables from the HOME program? Clients can be found on any street in the city, sheltering in place beneath a tent or in the open, visibly ignored. Who knows how many of them are mentally ill? 

For the broader population of homeless, newly elected Supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger joined Hilda Solis, Sheila Kuehl and Mark Ridley-Thomas in a unanimous vote, declareing homelessness a “state of emergency.”   

They also unanimously moved to put a quarter-cent sales tax on the March ballot to support homeless social services that would raise about $355 million annually over a decade. The Supervisors’ expectation is that this tax will fund rental assistance, subsidized health care, mental health and substance abuse treatments, and other services to help people get off and stay off the streets. It would complement the $1.2-billion general obligation bond measure approved by Los Angeles city voters last month. Two-thirds of voters must approve the new county sales tax in March. 

These two moves, the Prop HHH housing bond measure, approved by 77% of LA City voters in November, and the County Supervisors’ Approved Strategies to Combat Homelessness could make 2016 a landmark year, a turning point for helping the homeless in Los Angeles. 

Finally, we have a plan with funding and a future. In 2016, Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas fought all year, failing in his attempts to get Governor Brown and legislators in Sacramento to help. Instead there was a defeat of the “Robin Hood tax” requiring millionaires to provide funding for homeless programs, no unlocking of the state’s Rainy Day Fund to provide program financing, and a gubernatorial veto of a request for declaring a statewide “state of emergency” to provide emergency relief for the homeless. However, Ridley-Thomas did have some success advocating for the city’s homeless housing bond measure, the countywide declaration of a state of emergency on the homeless, as well as the placement of the March 2017 ballot of a 1/4 per-cent sales tax to help pay for social services.

“All around us, we find human beings living in utter squalor – a shocking number of them families with children,” Supervisor Ridley-Thomas said. “With this historic vote, we are taking a bold step towards ending this humanitarian crisis, the defining civic issue of our time.” 

Los Angeles will continue to be a mecca for the homeless, attracted by the climate and easy lifestyle that is the envy of most of the world. We will never have the capacity to house all of those who come. However, these new measures passed by the City and County of Los Angeles may provide some important help to at least stabilize the homeless issue. 

The first priority must be to bring the mentally ill homeless into a state of stability. It is the weakest link in a whole chain of actions needed to provide essential help for the homeless that surround us. It must happen now if we want to claim any real success or call what we have done a “cure.” 

(Tim Deegan is a long-time resident and community leader in the Miracle Mile, who has served as board chair at the Mid City West Community Council and on the board of the Miracle Mile Civic Coalition. Tim can be reached at [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

EDUCATION POLITICS--At Tuesday’s LAUSD board meeting, the school board will take on public school destroyer Betsy DeVos (Photo above: Betsy DeVos with Donald Trump), Trump’s nominee for US Education Secretary.

Board President Steve Zimmer will introduce a resolution, which reads in part:
 
“…the Board of Education calls on the President-elect and his Nominee for Secretary of Education to re-affirm the role of public schools to serve every student that comes to the school house door, acknowledge that our public school[s] are an essential foundation [of] our democracy and indicate that they will support policies, initiatives and investments that serve all students and not some students and that they will support and invest in policies and initiatives that support equity, achievement and excellence while stabilizing instead of destabilizing our public school systems…”
It's sure to be popular in blue, blue California. And it will keep board members, including those running for re-election, in the news.
 
But at some point, the press conferences will be over and we will begin to navigate our new reality in real situations.
 
Turns out “at some point” is already upon us.
 
On the very same agenda, Board President Steve Zimmer is proposing a school that contradicts this lofty resolution. The $10 million (to start) Playa Vista Middle School, which didn’t even face a quorum to be vetted at the Bond Oversight Committee, is on the Board’s consent calendar. So, no discussion necessary. (Although, we’ve discussed it in the blogosphere.)   
 
The Playa Vista Middle School that caters to certain Westside families cannot be described as a policy, initiative and investment that serves *all students*. It specifically serves *some students*. It does not *support equity*, but gives greater resources to a more affluent and less diverse population than at any of the surrounding schools. It specifically *destabilizes our public school system* because the district is doing nothing to enhance the existing middle schools in the area as it creates the shiny new school for a select few.
 
So when the rhetorical flourishes fade away, are LAUSD’s board members committed to implementing policies that reject the new Trumpian reality they keep declaring is so objectionable? Or are they caving to the worst parts of ourselves that his campaign revealed to be more prevalent than any of us dreamed?
 
We’ll find out on Tuesday.

To be the public in public education

Last week, the LA School Board held a Committee of the Whole meeting at a special location. The address was not announced on the school district’s website, but it was revealed if you drilled down into the supporting documents, or if you were in the know.
 
I showed up at the District board room, the usual venue, after paying $8 to park. A security officer told me the meeting must be somewhere else because his boss was off campus.
 
Once I drilled down on the web, I got the new address and drove to the special location. No street parking was available in the bustling downtown Los Angeles location. I re-parked in the garage of the building, and found the meeting room on a plaza shared by a few popular restaurants.
 
The meeting was in full swing with board members and Superintendent Michelle King discussing the revised Strategic Plan, which was not posted with the board materials for the public. Some people in the room had printed copies, but I didn’t see a stack of them anywhere. So I listened and figured I’d get a copy later, off the web.
 
An hour and a half later, I left to pick up my daughter from school. The parking attendant told me I had chalked up a $38 parking tab!
 
That's a Betsy DeVos price tag! And it wasn't even for valet! Joking aside, that hefty price would be impossible for the many Title I moms whose children attend LAUSD schools.
 
As I fumed on the way home about the $38, I got to thinking about how hard it is to be the public in the 2^nd largest school district in the country.
 
I already wrote about the Bond Oversight Committee voting to lighten its load, public disclosure be damned. That was just one example of the public being less and less a part of our public school district. 
 
There are other challenges. We, the public, see the board agendas three days in advance. We have 72 hours to sift through upwards of 400 pages of documents to see if there is something of particular relevance. Important expenditures are stuffed into voluminous reports, so much goes unnoticed. Policy changes are sometimes disguised as innocuous actions. In three days, we are usually only able to react rather than thoughtfully participate in the issues of the district. Hence, the bug eyed looks and breathless comments sometimes seen and heard at those meetings.
 
Even if we were prepared to provide input on various agenda items, we would not be permitted to.
 
California has a good public meetings law and a strong FOIA-type public records act. But different agencies handle the public differently. While the Los Angeles City Council and the State Coastal Commission, for example, encourage public input by providing time for comment on each agenda item, parents attending five- or ten-hour long school board meetings with upwards of 50 items on the agenda are only permitted to make one comment during the entire meeting. That, of course, is absurd for a public school district. 

To add insult to injury, labor union representatives, on the other hand, may comment on every single agenda item they wish to. When the unions don’t bother to comment, that’s sometimes a sure sign that they’ve had internal meetings with District and Board staff to hash out concerns before the Board votes—and before the public weighs in.
 
It isn’t that employees should be prevented from participating in District business, of course. But public school parents shouldn’t be kept out either.

Some parents are accommodated, such as parents whose kids attend charters. Charter petitions are now heard at their own separate meetings with a “time certain”.  According to an article in the LA School Report, Steve Zimmer, Monica Ratliff and Monica Garcia worked to ensure charter parents do not sit for hours waiting to make their case for a charter renewal amidst 50 other agenda items.
 
So, old school, public school parents, it seems all we need is a labor leader, a lobbyist or a lawyer to lead us so that we might be accommodated once in a while, too.
 
This is more than an exercise in alliteration.

It might be more efficient to run a public school district without the public. But before we start advocating for that, let’s remember that it’s precisely what Betsy DeVos has largely achieved in her state of Michigan. It’s what we are sure to see more of coming out of Washington, DC soon.

Will LAUSD resist that? 

• NEED TO KNOW 

E-mail, call or write your school board member:

[email protected]  213-241-8333
[email protected]  213-241-6180
[email protected]  213-241-5555
[email protected]  213-241-6382
[email protected]  213-241-6388
[email protected]  213-241-6385
[email protected]  213-241-6387

And the Superintendent:
[email protected] 
213-241-7000

Find your state legislator:
http://bit.ly/dqFdq2 

Mayor Eric Garcetti  
[email protected] 
213.978.0600

Governor Jerry Brown:
213-897-0322 
http://www.govmail.ca.gov/

Write a letter to the LA Times editor.
http://lat.ms/2bynXZy

(Karen Wolfe is a public school parent, the Executive Director of PS Connect and an occasional contributor to CityWatch.)

-cw