LA City Council’s Plastic Bag Charade

CityWatch, Dec 20, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 101

RETHINKING LA - Faced with a choice between leading and following, LA’s City Council took another look at the proposed ordinance banning single use bags and chose to step aside, taking on the role of spectator as the issue gets studied again and again and again.

LA’s history of grappling with the issue of single use bags goes back years, an embarrassing legacy of skilled sidestepping and risk-aversion that has frustrated community members who attend meeting after meeting in the hopes that the City Council will move forward.

This past week, the issue came up in three different meetings, first in City Council where a full-house crowd was given a full 60 seconds per speaker to make their case.

Heal the Bay’s Mark Gold called out the City Council for failing to act on its prior commitments.

Friends of the LA River spoke of the immense burden on the river’s ecosystem and the incredible amount of volunteerism that is squandered in an uphill battle against plastic bag pollution.

Balancing the pro with a bit of con, employees of one of LA’s plastic bag manufacturers turned out to plead for their jobs, begging the question, what kind of industry is LA attracting and supporting?

There was tension in the air as Councilwoman Jan Perry took pains to remind the City Council and the audience that the proposed single use bag ordinance was on the agenda in her Energy & Environment Committee, a point that she drove home pointedly.

The turf war over single use bags continued this past Friday, first in Committee as Perry presided over a body that acquiesced to her contention “We have questions that haven’t been answered.”

Perry wanted to know how this ban would impact low-income families, senior citizens, people without access to reusable bags. Has the CAO weighed in on any potential costs? What are the chances of a lawsuit against the City of LA? What about any CEQA requirements? Has the City of LA done an EIR?

Perry’s final blow was to ask if there was an outreach plan for the proposed ban, as if the City of LA has a rigorous standard for connecting with the community on the issues that impact the quality of life in our communities.

All this was done with a straight face and the Energy & Environment Committee allowed the proposed ban to hobble downstairs to City Council Chambers where the real charade took place.

Councilman Zine stood to challenge the proposed ban, feigning confusion between a plastic bag with handles and a plastic bag for fruit. “I just don’t get it, they’re all plastic,’ he sputtered, “how do I shop for fruit if you ban plastic?”

Zine’s Sophistry was balanced by Councilman Bill Rosendahl’s dismissal of the fictional issues and his call to action. “The City Council acted on this issue before I was elected. Since then the City Council has acted to ban plastic bags and here we are again.” Rosendahl declared “I'm tired of constantly studying this to death. It's a no-brainer that those plastic bags are toxic and cause issues to our ecosystem."

But, the die was cast, the public had been teased and three meetings had taken place, allowing Councilmembers to posture and primp and clamor for the high road, all as they allow the ordinance banning single use bags to get away, again.

Many of the single use bag ban supporters were hoping that a ban in Los Angeles would resonate, stirring support for a statewide ban, while others held out hope for a statewide ban, allowing LA to follow rather than lead.

As it turns out, neither scenario is likely at this point and it is surrounding cities such as Long Beach and Santa Monica that are following the lead of LA County with bans that rely on existing EIR work and standards that have survived legal challenges.

The ban is supported by the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, 18 Neighborhood Councils and the California Grocers Association. LA’s Board of Public Works unanimously approved a report urging the Mayor and City Council to adopt a citywide ban on single-use carryout bags.

Zine’s cloud of confusion was disingenuous at best, easily addressed by a glance at the ordinance itself and existing clarification that allows for bags to hold produce and meats while requiring free reusable bags for low-income and elderly.

As the proposed ban sinks back into committee wasteland, perhaps the place to start would be a ban on single use bags in City Council chambers.

After the Councilmembers had taken turns waxing eloquent on the evils of everything from single use bags that clog our waterways to plastic manufacturing beads that litter our landscape, their actions began to speak louder than their words.

As the noontime hour approached, a city staffer delivered lunch to his boss as he sat in Council Chambers. It arrived in a single use plastic bag that held a single use Styrofoam container full of food that was eaten with single use plasticware, washed down by a beverage that arrived in a single use container.

It’s been seven years since the City of LA initiated the charade that now consumes the time and energy of the community while allowing the City Council to avoid producing real results.

This is a vivid reminder that the people of LA must pay attention to what the City Council does, not what they say!

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

The Fix is In: A Tale of Two Bans

CityWatch, Dec 16, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 100

RETHINKING LA - Over the past year, two groups of community activists have been aggressively drumming up support for their respective causes, one fighting for a ban on advertising in city parks while the other pursues a ban on single-use plastic bags.

Both groups have worked the neighborhood council circuit with success that allows them to argue their case before City Council while holding handfuls of resolutions of support in the air.

Both groups have aligned themselves with like-minded organizations that lend their professional non-profit advocacy seal-of-approval to the cause, joining activists at the podium with an air of credibility that is supported by data, science and objectivity.
Both groups held events around town to engage the public who signed petitions and followed organizers to commission meetings, committee meetings, and eventually to City Hall where, some charge, all is for naught because when the fix is in, the fix is in.

This past week, LA’s City Council took public testimony on the proposed plastic bag ban, prompting Heal the Bay’s Mark Gold to point out, “This body acted in 2008 and committed to moving forward with a ban on single-use plastic bags.”

The City Council responded by taking testimony from a full house of proponents and opponents before continuing any Council discussion and action on the single-use plastic bag ban issue until their last meeting of the year on Friday, December 16, 2011.

In an odd bit of Kabuki Theatre, the issue went to City Council over the objections of Mayoral Candidate Jan Perry who had the issue agendized in the Energy and Environment Committee.

Whew! Three Council hearings in one week for an issue that has languished for years.

Optimists hold that this enthusiasm bodes well for the single-use plastic bag ban. Pessimists point out that by holding multiple meetings with public testimony, the Council can proceed with discussion and action during the last meeting of the year without the clutter of public comment.

In either case, this journey of anticipated success is in sharp contrast with the travails of those who sought a ban on advertising in city parks, an uphill battle that was made more difficult because of the potential to fatten the city’s coffers with revenue from the park advertising.

The campaign to ban advertising in city parks was mobilized when LA’s Rec & Parks Commission signed a deal with Warner Bros. that allowed signs promoting a “Yogi Bear” movie in return for $46,000.

Community activists rose to the occasion in a battle that saw LA’s City Attorney grapple with Rec & Parks Commission President Barry Sanders over the definition of advertising and the legality of park sign districts.

As the Parks Commission appeared to back down from its plan to sell advertising rights in city parks, it was a media investigation that revealed the plan that would allow the non-profit LA Parks Foundation to sell advertising in popular areas such as Griffith Park and Venice Beach.

In a clear demonstration of contempt for Griffith Park’s status as America’s largest urban wilderness park  and of the world’s 34 biodiversity hotspots for conservation, the Mayor looks at Griffith Park and sees a potential sign district with revenue potential.

As community activists continue to fight for a ban on city park advertising, the Mayor is pursuing an overhaul of LA’s sign ordinance that will create “innovative revenue sources” such as wilderness advertising.

When Colonel Griffith J. Griffith gifted the City of LA with the land that became Griffith Park, it came with conditions including a requirement that it remain open and free of charge, “a place of rest and relaxation for the masses, a resort for the rank and file, for the plain people.”

Mayoral Candidate Jan Perry has defended the proposed sign ordinance revisions that would allow advertising in public parks, most recently coming under fire at the Venice Neighborhood Council when she said “It provides opportunity for funding to continue in the parks and I think we should let them do it.”

Perry alluded to “opt-out” options that she indicated she would be willing to include in the sign ordinance, saying “I’m not interested in jamming something down people’s throats that they don’t want.”

If only it were that simple!

In both cases, community activists have engaged in journeys that are exhausting, filled with meetings and hearings that turn out to be tests of patience and endurance.

Weeks turn into months which turn into years. City staff members come and go, Commission members shuffle seats, City Council committee assignments change, and through it all, the issue is kept alive by community volunteers.

It’s a “Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t!” scenario that sees activists sit for hours in the hope of delivering a compelling argument in the 60 seconds that is typically allocated to speakers when a decent crowd shows up for public comment.

Failure to attend a meeting provides “silence is consent” coverage to the City Council, allowing them to conduct the legislative sleight of hand that is the hallmark of a body that votes unanimously in predetermined outcomes 99.3% of the time.

It’s been a long year and as the City Council looks back, typically with a celebratory tally of the motions they have passed, it remains to be seen whether the single-use plastic bag ban will materialize or if LA’s parks will turn into sign districts.

One thing is for certain, the unsung heroes in these battles are the individuals who stand up and engage the Mayor and the Council in the process, however flawed it may be, and defend our neighborhoods, our communities, and our city by fighting the good fight! Even if that process inevitably leaves those heroes with a sense that the fix is most likely in.

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

CityWatchLA - City & Cyclists Take a Love-Hate Ride in the Lights

CityWatch, Dec 12, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 100

Soap Box-Video
By Stephen Box



Cyclists demonstrated their love-hate relationship with the City of Los Angeles this past week by staging a protest ride at Griffith Park on Monday night and then a Celebration at City Hall on Tuesday. Monday's protest was the 3rd annual "Festival of RIGHTS!" in which cyclists take the DWP and Councilman Tom LaBonge to task for promoting the Griffith Park Festival of Lights as "Going Green" and then proceeding to ban cyclists from the congested streets filled with idling vehicles. News crews from KABC and Fox joined the cyclists as they gathered at the Mulholland Fountain, adorned themselves in holiday decorations and then rode through the gridlock of the Griffith Park Festival of Lights.

Tuesday's celebration came about as the Councilman Bill Rosendahl initiated motion to endorse the Cyclists' Bill of Rights finally worked its way to the full City Council. The motion was co-sponsored by Council President Eric Garcetti and Transpo Committee Chair Wendy Greuel and was seconded by Councilmen Ed Reyes and Bernard Parks. Cyclists have been taking the CBR around the City for months, picking up endorsements and encouragement, all the while fighting to maintain the integrity of the document, urging for approval "as written, as ridden!" The motion was approved unanimously and the cycling community celebrated.

In both cases, the events simply marked the beginning of the next phase of an ever-developing journey as the cycling community works to establish its place in the community and to establish a relationship based on respect and equality.

Monday night's ride was less about the Festival of Lights and more about the City's authority to restrict cyclists from the streets of Los Angeles. To the credit of the Department of Recreation and Parks, they tried to accommodate the cyclists on Monday night, although their offer was to have the Festival of RIGHTS! protest ride use the bridle trail. Not only is this illegal under LA's Municipal Code and not only does it demonstrate a misunderstanding of the notion of a "protest ride" but it also maintains a position that is the basis for the protest, that the City of Los Angeles has the right to restrict cyclists from the street.

Cyclists have long asserted that State law (CVC 21- the Uniformity Code) restricts the rights of a municipality to ban cyclists from the streets. LaBonge responds that the streets of Griffith Park are private park streets not covered by State law. This made it tough for the Supervising Park Ranger when he threatened to cite the cyclists at the end of the ride because the simple challenge was "under whose authority?" One can't both claim to be free of California Vehicle Code authority and then write tickets for violating the same code.

Ultimately, Sgt. Joyce stood his ground and threatened to write tickets and then to have his armed backup Rangers detain the cyclists while the tickets were being written. This offer was accepted by the cyclists and the stand-off lasted seconds before the Rangers were dismissed and sent home. Sgt. Joyce demonstrated a lack of willingness to enforce the ban with tickets or arrest and he got back in his truck and returned to the Ranger Station followed in the same lane by the remaining cyclists. (many had grown bored by the debate and had taken off in search of holiday cheer)

As for Tuesday's victory in City Hall, it marked a beginning, not an end. The Motion simply endorsed the Bill of Rights, a document that enumerates a dozen rights that are already guaranteed in some manner by Federal, State and local law, policies and directives. The real value of the Cyclist's Bill of Rights is its effectiveness as a catalyst for discussion and that is the opportunity that cyclists seek to pursue.

Through it all, the cycling community has been urging our leadership to endorse the CBR, as an affirmation to cyclists that they ride with rights and to inform the greater community of the nature of those rights.

In both cases, on the streets of Griffith Park and in Council Chambers at City Hall, it is most rewarding to this cyclist to see the cycling community engaged in the process. The discussions, the debates, the desire to improve, the passion, the participation, the perseverance, and the progress all serve to remind us that the journey is its own reward!

"See you on the Streets!"

CityWatchLA - Griffith Park Festival of Rights

CityWatch, Nov 28, 2008
Vo. 6 Issue 96

The City
By Stephen Box

The Griffith Park Festival of Lights opened with a whimper this past Monday night as Councilmember Tom LaBonge joined the DWP in hosting the Festival's token "Bike-Night."

This year the displays were brighter, the attendance was lighter, and LaBonge's stubborn resolve to limit cyclists to this one night of pre-holiday festivities was as strong as ever.

LaBonge reaffirmed his claim that it's simply not safe for cyclists to ride on the street at night with so many automobiles, forgetting that Crystal Springs is striped with a bike lane. Well, it was. Actually, the bike lane disappears during the Festival of Lights in order to create another lane for motor vehicles.

All this from the self-proclaimed Patron Saint of Cyclists!

This is the 13th year for the Griffith Park Festival of Lights. It was originally conceived by Councilmember John Ferraro as LA's "gift to the people." Ferraro was inspired by a Festival of Lights he witnessed in San Antonio and he returned to Los Angeles vowing to create a display worthy of LA. This he accomplished, in ways he may not have imagined.

In all fairness to the DWP, this year's festival shows great improvement with two weeks (November 25 - Dec 7) set aside for a vehicle-free festival featuring special accommodations for equestrians (Tues, Wed, Thurs) and even a protected lane for the peds who bring their dogs. In other words, even those who arrive by dog-sled can enjoy the Festival of Lights, all while cyclists are banned.

The progressive changes in the operation of the Festival are largely the result of strong lobbying from the Parks, Rec and Open Space Committee (PROS) led by Bernadette Soter and a coalition of supporting organizations which includes the Los Feliz Improvement Association, the Oaks Homeowners Association, the Sierra Club, the Greater Griffith Park, the Hollywood United and the Atwater Village Neighborhood Councils, the Bike Writers Collective and a full complement of community groups that totals approximately 30.

The Coalition has long been advocating for improvements to the auto-centric, environmental nightmare that the Festival of Lights wreaks on the local community. Fully a half-million people arrive each year to enjoy "LA's gift to the people" resulting in traffic congestion so significant that the adjacent freeway is brought to a halt. Festival attendees sit in traffic congestion so thick that the notion that cyclists would be endangered is laughable. (Coughable?) Signs announcing 90 minute to 2 hour delays in traffic bear witness to the significant negative impact that the large number of idling vehicles represent, all as they wait for access to the one-mile long Festival of Lights.

Meanwhile, cyclists are banned in order to allow for more motor vehicles. (Or was it for the safety of the cyclists?)

In either case, the "Yea for Motorists! Nay for Cyclists!" Griffith Park Light Festival is well under way, with only one week left to join the DWP in its effort to help the City of LA become "America's Greenest City!" and to enjoy the vehicle (and bicycle) free Festival. After that it's business (bike-free) as usual.

As for the cyclists of Los Angeles, December 8th, which is the opening night for the motor vehicle crowd, is also the night for the Griffith Park "Festival of Rights," a ritual ride of protest where cyclists adorn themselves in the appropriate holiday decorations and ride through the gridlock, sharing holiday goodwill and cheer with the motorists who find themselves trapped in the awe-inspiring gridlock that is most certainly worthy of a city such as LA. This was certainly not what Ferraro had in mind. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist activist and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net )

INFO: For the “Festival of Rights” ride, cyclists meet at the Mulholland Fountain at the SW corner of Los Feliz Boulevard and Crystal Springs/Riverside Drive at 6:30 p.m. December 8 and ride @ 7:00 pm. (3700 Los Feliz Blvd. LA, CA 90027)

CityWatchLA - Welcome Sign Comes Down at Board Meetings

CityWatch, Nov 7, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 90

DWP Watch
By Stephen Box

This past Tuesday I traveled to the DWP Commission meeting in order to request a repeal of the ban on cyclists during the DWP's Griffith Park Festival of Lights. This was my 4th visit to the Commission this year in an effort to lift the ban and this is my third year of fighting to lift the prohibition. (I've also gone to the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Caltrans Bicycle Advisory Committee, Councilman LaBonge, San Antonio and the Parks, Rec and Open Space Committee, all in an effort to sway the DWP)

I arrived late to find a thinly populated room with Commissioner Forescee Hogan-Rowles chairing the Commission, Commissioner Lee Kanon Alpert to her left and Commissioner Wally Knox to her right.

The Commission Chambers, traditionally a full house, was thinly populated and those in attendance seemed distracted and bored with a couple most certainly taking a nap.

I tried to sign in for public comment but my opportunity had passed so I attempted to turn in a speaker card for the last item on the agenda, only to be informed that they heard that item at the beginning of the session because of the large number of people who turned out to speak. I asked how many people turned out and was told seven. That included Councilmembers Garcetti and LaBonge.

With little to do but watch, I settled in and was immediately struck by the new tone and demeanor of the proceedings.

A couple of contracts come up for approval which prompted DWP GM David Nahai to address the issue of conflict of interest and DWP Chief Operating Officer Raman Raj's relationship with DWP vendors. Nahai began an overview of the process to ensure that all contracts were executed openly and transparently and in accord with the DWP's ethics policies, only to be cut off by Commissioner Alpert who said "I know Mr. Raj, I've had conversations with Mr. Raj and I've experienced his commitment to an ethical style of operation. I don't need to hear any more, Mr. Nahai. I trust Mr. Raj and I trust you."

Commissioner Knox leaned into the microphone and offered his endorsement saying "I echo Commissioner Alpert's comments."

Chair Hogan-Rowles beamed, the speaker who was preparing to speak was relieved, the issue was put to rest and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the contracts.

Long gone were the days of the (Commissioner Nick) Patsauoras-Nahai tension. Days when one could show up a half hour late and still make public comment. The DWP Commission had morphed into a mutual admiration club with checks and balances and oversight replaced by a new love fest environment. All that was missing was a round of Kumbaya and some Graham Crackers and milk.

The meeting adjourned and the room cleared, quickly.

I found myself standing in Commission Chambers with Nahai and Knox and so I took the opportunity to present my case for the repeal of the ban on cyclists in Griffith Park during the DWP's Festival of Lights.

Mr. Nahai made eye contact, listened, nodded and seemed to be interested. Knox paused for a moment, looked at Mr. Nahai and dismissed me with the simple comment "Cyclists have been given concessions and access to the Festival. They're allowed in on Bike Night." He then nodded, turned and left the room. Apparently he thinks that cyclists should celebrate the holidays on Nov 25th. He's wrong.

Since I had the opportunity I charged ahead and pointed out that a DWP ban on cyclists violated State Law (CVC 21 - Uniformity Code which precludes municipalities from restricting cyclists unless expressly permitted) Griffith Park Charter (transportation “kept within the reach of the most modest means.”) and simple logic. (who on earth can defend a ban on cyclists in an urban wilderness environment, all in an effort to make way for more automobiles who will then spend 90 minutes in a traffic jam)

Nahai responded that stakeholders had responded favorably to the DWP's "Bike Night" access plan. I pointed out that there were no stakeholders in favor of the "Bike Night Preview" on November 25th and that, in fact, I had the support of the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Caltrans Bicycle Advisory Committee in lifting the ban. I pointed out that the significant stakeholder attitude was one of opposition to an auto-centric Festival.

I stated clearly that the DWP's ban on cyclists was simply indefensible and asked him to lift it. To his credit he never wavered but simply acknowledged my argument and promised to investigate. I thanked him and turned for the door. As I crossed the room, he called out, "By the way, I admire and respect your tenacity."

The ball is now in Nahai's court. Here's hoping the holidays are happy for everybody in Los Angeles, including the cyclists.

(Stephen Box is an important cyclist advocate in Los Angeles and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)