LA’s ACE Program Cuts Both Ways

CityWatch, Sept 30, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 78

RETHINKING LA - “Don't worry,” said the trees when they saw the axe coming, “The handle is one of us.”

LA’s proposed Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) Program is positioned as a panacea capable of curing all that ails the broken City of Los Angeles, including the ongoing budget crisis, collapsing infrastructure, threats to public safety, quality of life issues, courthouse backlogs, overworked and understaffed municipal departments, and a full generation of inefficient code enforcement that has left the landscape of LA littered with billboards, pot shops, and busted sidewalks.

High horse advocates of the ACE program have become so enthralled with the idea of efficient code enforcement that they have missed the parallel journey of Council File No. 05-1853, a City Attorney initiated draft ordinance which would make residents responsible for sidewalk repair.

In other words, as the residents of LA are distracted by the promise of the proposed ACE program, the City Attorney is working to return responsibility for the city’s broken sidewalks to the property owners who will then find themselves on the enforcement end of the newly armed ACE program.

The City Attorney has a strong motivation for getting the ACE program underway and then for shifting responsibility for sidewalk repair to property owners due to the pending settlement of a class action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit which is scheduled for court approval on October 20, 2011.

The current proposed settlement would commit the City of LA to the implementation of a 25 year plan for bringing the City of LA’s sidewalks into ADA compliance. Under current budget conditions, this is hardly a promise the City of LA can make but by shifting the responsibility of sidewalk repair to residents and then arming the City Attorney with ACE enforcement efficiency, the people of LA will soon discover that ACE is the sword that cuts both ways.

The ACE program was initially presented with strong claims of revenue enhancement potential. City Attorney presentations to community groups pointed out that currently, fines go to Sacramento but under ACE, the City of LA gets to keep the money.

Charges that the City of LA was only interested in balancing the budget on the backs of those who can afford it the least have prompted a CLA directive which clarifies that the purpose of the ACE program is to improve code enforcement, not to generate revenue. Of course, saying so doesn’t make it so, but it’s a nice gesture that is only contradicted by reality and the words of Councilmembers and Department managers.

The ACE program is billed by the City Attorney’s office as an alternative to the current system that treats municipal code violations as misdemeanors, resulting in a clogged system that currently has a backlog of 10,000 cases.

ACE is positioned as a simple administrative process of municipal code violation enforcement that will foster “timely compliance with the law in order to protect public health and safety and provide a fair and effective administration of justice.”

The proposed ACE program includes provisions for City Attorney inspectors with the authority to issue Administrative Citations for code violations that they witness. This power is buried in a draft ordinance that lacks clearly defined roles, authorities, and oversight for the proposed Enforcement Officers and is a significant weakness in a proposal that grants unprecedented power to the City Attorney’s office.

Proponents of the program have seized on ACE as a remedy to the quality of life issues that include barking dogs, loud parties, loitering, dirty sidewalks, gambling, filming without a permit, dogs on the beach, fireworks, dog defecations, and curb numbers getting painted without a permit.

Opponents of the program counter that the ACE program is complaint driven, that it results in more uneven application of the municipal code, that it results in selective enforcement of the law, and that it sacrifices due process in return for revenue generation, all at the expense of those who can afford it the least.

The judicial element of the ACE program is made up of Administrative Hearing Officers who are either under the oversight of the City Attorney’s office or completely independent of the City Attorney’s office, depending on whether you are listening to City Attorney representatives on Council Phone or on the Larry Mantle Show on KPCC. When you consider that the proposed ordinance gives the Administrative Hearing Officers subpoena authority, it seems reasonable to delay the ACE proposal until this issue is resolved.

When the Committee expressed concerns about the proposed subpoena authority, Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter jumped quickly, too quickly in fact, to defend it by saying “this allows those charged with a citation to call witnesses.” To hear him speak, it sounds like the cited party will end up with subpoena authority. Regardless, he was unclear on whether this was at the discretion of the Hearing Officer or if it was a right of the cited party. Again, it seems reasonable to delay the ACE proposal until this issue is resolved.

At every turn, the proponents of the proposed ACE program extol the virtues of a system that “decriminalizes” Municipal Code violations, allowing residents to simply pay a fine and go on their way. Missing is a discussion of the due process that also disappears and the resulting system that limits the rights of the charged yet expands the powers of the City Attorney.

Administrative Hearings are final for the residents of Los Angeles and if the ruling is against them, “no further appeal may be filed pursuant to the provisions of this Code.” Yet if the ruling is in favor of the resident, the City Attorney can still pursue “any and all remedies provided by law.”

While the decriminalization of the actual code violation is touted as a benefit, the result is a swift journey to judgment where the failure to abide by the Administrative Order or pay the Administrative Fine is subject to “criminal remedies, civil action, injunctive relief, specific performance, and the recordation of a lien or a notice of the Administrative Violation against real property.” The penalties, coupled with the threat of enforcement, are hardly in scale with decriminalized violations. Again, it seems reasonable to delay the ACE proposal until this issue is resolved.

Charges that the proposed ACE program, as drafted by the City Attorney, is nothing more than an employment strategy with a funding stream are hard to ignore when the draft ordinance provides for the recovery of “reasonable attorney’s fees and all costs.” If the ACE proposal is truly an efficient program, the City Attorney’s office should be experiencing savings, not elbowing its way to the feeding trough in an embarrassing display of bureaucratic gluttony.

This past Monday, the proposed ACE program made another appearance at the City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee, drawing a standing room only crowd that spoke passionately about the ACE program, with 16 members of the public in favor of ACE and 14 members opposed.

The City Hall spin team watched the Committee send the ACE motion back to the City Attorney for a systemic overhaul, a “continuance” that was erroneously referred to as “unanimous endorsement.” The split audience was also referred to as supportive, completely dismissing the positions of those who showed up to protest.

The proposed ACE program, as presented by the City Attorney’s office, fell far short of the City’s Chief Legislative Analyst standards, enduring 14 recommendations for adjustment from the CLA and a fairly significant round of detailed concerns from the Committee, resulting in a continuance to Monday, October 3, when the City Attorney will return with another version of the proposed ACE program.

The original motion that put the proposed ACE program in motion was made in January of 2010 by Councilman Koretz, seconded by Councilman Parks, and positioned as an opportunity to create “a more efficient and effective code enforcement program through the use of administrative citations, as an alternative to legal action.”

The long journey to this week’s continuance has been one of Budget and Finance Committee instructions and City Attorney responses, a see-saw battle that pits the original intentions of Councilman Koretz against the desires of the City Attorney’s office.

The City Attorney’s draft ordinance does not restrict, limit, or specify which Municipal Code Sections would be covered or enforceable under the ACE program, in spite of prior instructions from the Committee to specify participating departments and relevant code sections.

Councilman Englander asked Chief Deputy City Attorney Carter if the proposed ACE program applied to LA’s entire Municipal Code and he received a very quiet affirmative answer, prompting another directive to the City Attorney to prepare a list that limits and clarifies the appropriate codes.

Councilman Koretz acknowledged the concerns of the public about due process, uneven application of the law, the vulnerability of a complaint driven system, and the risk of selective prosecution, all of which prompted him to insist that the ACE program be unfolded slowly as a pilot program, an instruction that has met resistance from the City Attorney. Koretz’s final position was that the LAPD was the only department to be involved in the initial “pilot” phase and that the Housing Department and Animal Services would be the next two in line.

Committee Chair Parks acquiesced to Koretz’s suggestion that the program start slowly with the LAPD, expressing disappointment that the pilot didn’t include Housing and Animal Services, and pointing out that the current budget already included anticipated revenue from Animal Services code enforcement actions. Parks was firm in his contention that the Department of Building and Safety was an unsuitable participant in the ACE program because the department was “in a quagmire.”

Councilman Englander noted that if the City of LA is about to get busy enforcing municipal code such as the prohibition of gas powered leaf blowers, it should first start by putting an end to its own code violations, referring to the City’s use of illegal leaf blowers.

The irony to having the LAPD serve as the test pilot for the proposed ACE program is that the LAPD’s new division facilities are all built in violation of LAMC 12.21, the same section that is used to cite residents for land use violations. In fact, a significant number of people that spoke in opposition were there with complaint driven 12.21 violations that had resulted in threats of “liens, garnishment, and other legal actions” all because of over-in-height fences.

There is no doubt that the City of LA is mired in a tremendously inefficient system of code enforcement but to embrace the current ACE program is to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.

To those who stand ready to call in their neighbor for that barking dog, pause for a moment and look out the window at your sidewalk. If it is broken, remember that the sword cuts both ways and while your neighbor is muzzling his dog, you will be repaving your sidewalks.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)

Angelenos: At Their Best When Things Are Worst!

CityWatch, July 22, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 58

RETHINKING LA - Jeff Bridges received an Academy Award nomination for his role in John Carpenter’s 1984 film “Starman” where he played an alien who concluded his visit to Earth by noting that humans “are at their best when things are worst.” Time after time Angelenos have proven this to be true.

When a Metrolink train crashed head-on into a freight train in Chatsworth, residents self-mobilized and gathered supplies and food to support the firefighters and public safety officers at the scene. Hopping backyard fences, they worked around the clock, meeting a need that needed to be met. They didn’t have to be asked.

Three years earlier, when a Metrolink train derailed on the Glendale/LA border, it was the Costco employees who were the first responders, self-organizing themselves and local residents to initiate the rescue operation. As the professionals showed up, the locals shifted to a support role and partnered in the rescue operation. They didn’t need instructions.

When fire ravaged Griffith Park in 2007, residents in surrounding neighborhoods were given evacuation orders but traffic was so backed up that many had to simply walk out of the hills. Strangers opened their doors and offered refuge, helping the displaced neighbors connect with their loved ones or find shelter for the night. It took five hours for the Red Cross to arrive at the Marshall High evacuation center and by then the volunteers had everything under control, including accommodations for animals. They didn’t worry about traffic, they simply showed up on bikes and on foot.

The Station Fire of 2009 threatened the Sunland-Tujunga community, prompting locals to mobilize as the authorities debated jurisdiction. LA’s Animal Services was just one of the City of LA’s departments that waited for authorization while locals used social media to spread the word, organizing equestrians to evacuate the large animals that stood on city land but were breathing county smoke. They didn’t worry about jurisdiction, they simply worried about lives.

Angelenos are resilient, innovative, and full of surprises. Time after time they step up spontaneously to demonstrate that LA is at its best when things are worst.

In fact, Angelenos have a strong record for getting involved without waiting for the worst to happen.

Angelenos serve as LAPD Reserve Officers, supporting the LAPD and lightening the load so that the department can operate more effectively. The Fire Department is supported by Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers who are trained to provide traffic control support, evacuation shelter management, and emergency medical care.

Unfortunately, when times are worst, the City of LA’s bureaucracy can also be at its worst, serving as an obstacle to the spirit of volunteerism that is celebrated in times of quiet but can discouraged in times of crisis.

Consider the current budget scenario, one that has seen city department staffing levels decimated and service commitments reduced to minimal levels. One would think that this is the time that city departments would welcome support and assistance from the community, yet that is not always the case.

The City’s Animal Services Department, an essential element of LA’s emergency preparedness, has been on shaky grounds for years, struggling to fulfill its public safety, animal health, and pet adoption mandates.

Time after time, emergencies such as the Northridge Earthquake and the Station Fire demonstrate the importance of anticipating the need to care for animals in times of crisis yet Animal Services is soft on its commitment to integrating with the LA’s emergency services network.

From the simple care of cats and dogs during an evacuation to the coordination of large scale transportation for horses and livestock, time after time it’s the locals that demonstrate a commitment to results without hesitation. Using everything from ham radios to twitter accounts to communicate, it’s the volunteers that share information, enlist help, locate secure staging grounds, and transport, feed and shelter the animals that are a part of our community.

Folks such as Paul Darrigo consider this type of behavior to be the foundation of a compassionate society and he can trace his volunteerism back to the day he rescued an injured dog, transporting it to the hospital after Animal Services failed to show.

Darrigo recognized then that Animal Services was limited in its ability to handle public safety issues, animal health concerns, shelter operations, and pet adoptions. In the spirit of self-mobilizing volunteerism, he went to work.

LA’s Reserve Animal Control Officer (RACO) program was dormant for years until Darrigo started visiting neighborhood councils throughout the city, enlisting support and soliciting funds to pay for the training and the uniforms of the reinstated RACO program.

One would think that this type of support would be celebrated at Animal Services, but the department seems to be on a rocky road that has seen General Managers come and go, the kill rate go up 30% in the last three years, and the City Controller schedule an audit to address her concerns of accountability and oversight.

Meanwhile, Darrigo continues to push for the opportunity to take on a volunteer project manager role that would include communicating with neighborhood councils, educating the public, raising funds, and coordinating the efforts of the multitude of volunteer rescue operations in the city. Unfortunately for Darrigo, and for the community, Animals Services has resisted his efforts.

This insulated behavior could be dismissed as a departmental reaction to recent charges of personnel issues that allegedly include theft and fraud.

Animal Services now joins Building & Safety, the Housing Department, and the Housing Commission as city agencies that are under investigation for allegations of wrongdoing. General Manager Brenda Barnette attributes these incidents to the failure of officials previously responsible for the department. Barnette was hired last year and claims to be engaged in a “robust and aggressive investigation.”

Darrigo considers the “department under attack” scenario as an even greater opportunity to be of service and says “The simple foundation of our government is civic responsibility and accountability and all I want to do is to support the Department of Animal Services.”

In a city of four million people, Darrigo believes that the real opportunity is in behavioral shifts that come from education, communication, synchronization and empowerment. He points to the actions of Angelenos during the recent Carmageddon threat and the success of water conservation efforts as evidence that the people of LA will do the right thing if empowered and educated. Darrigo says “One of the simplest ways to lighten the load on Animal Services would be to prevent the large number of feral animals and stray animals that challenge the department’s capacity.”

“It costs $150 to $250 to euthanize an animal,” he continues, claiming that “spaying and neutering costs less and educating the public is free. It makes no sense to ignore the real opportunity to engage the public and work on preventative steps that rely on volunteers.”

Darrigo’s most recent attempt to support Animal Services by promoting the City of LA’s “No-Kill” commitment at the upcoming Neighborhood Council Summit at City Hall was rejected without commentary by Barnette in a terse email that read “Thanks for your offer to represent the Department in the community. I'm going to decline your offer at this time.”

Barnette did not respond to repeated requests for an interview, understandable in the current audit conditions but also indicative of the insulated behavior that critics claim is a pattern at Animal Services, one that transcends the ongoing rotation of management.

The drama at Animal Services takes place in a city that is surrounded by a multitude of organizations that specialize in animal rescues.

Tippi Hedren’s Shambala Preserve is home to 60 lions, tigers, leopards and cougars. Animal Advocates take care of injured wildlife that includes squirrels, possums, coyotes, foxes, deer, skunks and possums. Parrots First adopts injured birds and complements its efforts with education programs.

The Kitty Bungalow Charm School for Wayward Cats socializes feral cats and prepares them for adoption, and in doing so, calls it like they see it. “The cat overpopulation is not a cat problem, it is a people problem caused by uneducated and sometime irresponsible pet owners who abandon their cats or do not have them sterilized, causing a proliferation of cats being born on the street.”

In a city that is in the midst of a budget crisis, and in a department that is in the midst of a management crisis, it seems fair to suggest, as Darrigo does, that Animal Services should focus on its public safety mandate and simply invigorate the RACO program so that volunteers can address “the people problem” that will lighten the load on Animal Services.

“You’ve got a lot of people ready to volunteer but we live in a litigious society that has immobilized our city,” says Darrigo, “resulting in a bureaucracy that sees the avoidance of liability as an improvement over assuming risk and taking care of business.”

Humane societies are judged by the manner in which they care for their animals. Responsible city governments are judged based on their oversight and operation of municipal agencies in the delivery of services. Great cities are judged based on their ability to engage the population as partners in the management of municipal affairs.

Los Angeles, in its operation and management of the Department of Animal Services, has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to humane behavior, to responsible city government, and to recognizing its volunteers as the heroes who are at their best when things are worst.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)

CityWatchLA - Rosendahl Dog Motion Sparks Howls of Discontent

CityWatch, Sept 17, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 74

Councilman Bill Rosendahl has introduced a motion in City Council that would increase the animal limit per residential property in the City of Los Angeles to 5 dogs and 5 cats. This simple motion has brought out the best in people and the worst in people, giving credence to the axiom, "There are no bad pets, just bad owners!"

Supporters of the motion argue that at its simplest, the increase in the legal number of pets per household would result in an $800,000 increase in revenue for the City of Los Angeles. Of course, this number might be swiftly consumed by mediators if the ensuing battle over the motion doesn't calm down.

Opponents to the motion contend that in densely populated communities, such as Echo Park or the Downtown loft environment, an increase in the already large number of animals would contribute to a public health and public safety crisis. Anecdotal examples are offered of pet "hoarders" and pit bull breeding mills.

Lola McKnight, Director of the Shelter Animal Advocacy Fund, points out that the beneficiaries of the motion are 1) the animals in the shelters that would have more adoption options 2) homeowners with space and finances for more pets 3) animal rescue services that need more foster homes 4) animal shelters who can place more animals and free up resources.

McKnight contends that those who would not benefit from the motion include 1) breeders who would still be operating illegally 2) dog fighters who would still be operating illegally 3) animal hoarders who would still be suffering from an illness and acting illegally.

Jose Sigala, President of the Greater Echo Park Elysian Neighborhood Council, argues that his community is "very supportive of pets for families, however, to allow five dogs and five cats per resident or even per property will create an increase in barking and fighting, and waste that may not be properly removed daily. This will cause odor and could result in epidemics of disease in a community where animals may not be regularly vaccinated and many are not licensed."

Sigala called on the City Council to reject the motion increasing the limit saying "adding more animals to our pet population when we do not have adequate control of existing pets could create unsafe conditions for the animals and our residents."

Through it all, there are some who contend that the debate over a limit of three vs. a limit of five is a distraction and that the real issue is the management of the Animal Services Department so that the people of Los Angeles can move from a complaint driven to a standards driven approach to incorporating LA's best friends into the community.

Proponents of a larger discussion point to cities such as San Diego and San Francisco, arguing that simple restrictions on the number of animals per household do little if anything to alleviate feral populations or the unnecessary euthanasia of companion animals in shelters.

James Clarke, Executive Director of the Apartment Association Greater Los Angeles, wants no part of it, pointing out "Housing providers (apartment owners) invest large amounts of money in the economy of Los Angeles and are dedicated to quality living conditions for tenants. There is very real and valid concern that allowing five dogs and five cats in all adjacent residential properties will cause even further impediments to meeting this goal and will create conditions that cannot be rectified expediently through the City process."

Brenda F. Barnette, General Manager of Animal Services, expresses optimism that the City Council and the people of LA will be able to craft model legislation that will be good for the animals and good for the people. Barnette said "At the Los Angeles Animal Care Centers we take seriously our responsibility to create a safe community for our two and our four legged citizens. Our job is protecting life and providing love. Let’s work together." (See GM Barnette’s complete letter)

Rosendahl's motion has stirred a literal hornet's nest of passionate debate, perhaps because this topic has been ignored for so long. Regardless of the outcome, Barnette's call "work together" is certainly a great place to start and a worthy accomplishment in and of itself.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)