Why Does Illegal Dumping Take Place in Hollywood? Because it Works!

CityWatch, May 18, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 40

RETHINKING LA - The Pastor of a local church arrived at his office to find a large pile of debris on the sidewalk next to his church property. It consisted of some furniture, some busted boxes of personal belongings, some trash, the kind of debris that is typically left behind when somebody moves.

The Pastor called 311 and then sent an email with a picture of the illegal dumping to some neighbors and to the City Councilman asking “What are people thinking?”

The answer is simple. They are thinking “If I carry my trash across the street, I won’t get charged for the pickup of the bulky items.”

In other words, people dump their junk on our quiet street because it works.

The Senior Lead Officer responded by sending an email saying “One idea would be is to contact the Department of Sanitation and have them remove the trash. I will put in a request for you but in the future you can contact 311 and place a request for a cleanup. Another idea, if you are interested, is to organize your neighbors and do a cleanup day in your neighborhood. I can contact operation clean sweep and request cleaning supplies. If you have further questions please feel free to call me.”

The problem with this advice is that it rewards the person dumping the trash by removing it without an investigation, and makes it the neighbor’s responsibility to do the dirty work. In other words, it works. 

The Council Office responded by sending an email (two days after the illegal dumping) “I have sent this to our beautification crew and have requested that they go out today and remove the items. In the future, please send it directly to me as well so that I can forward it on to the appropriate beautification staff depending on the day.”

This solution is equivalent to wiping the blood off the wound. It doesn’t stop the problem it simply cleans it up for a few moments. Again, for the person dumping, it works.

The Department of Sanitation responded by sending a crew that picked up the bulky items, leaving behind the broken glass and small debris that would require a broom or a shovel and a little more attention.

This solution is paid for by the “Multi-Family Bulky Item Fee” that is charged to all residents of apartments with 5 or more units per building on a monthly basis on their utility bill. In other words, two-thirds of the city pays for bulky item pickup while the other third pays if they call for a pickup. This is what motivates people to carry their trash across the street and to dump it in front of apartment buildings or in this case, a church.

The Bureau of Sanitation responded to the 311 call by sending a truck and picking up the larger items, leaving behind small bits of debris that included the ID card for the person who ended up confessing to the illegal dumping.

This solution keeps the Department of Sanitation busy cleaning our streets but it does nothing to stop those who do the dumping. In fact it does the opposite because it sends a loud message that “Illegal dumping works!”

The Bureau of Street Services is responsible for investigating illegal dumping but they don’t get notified when a resident calls 311 unless the party calling knows that Sanitation cleans while Street Services investigates. (Even our Senior Lead Officer didn’t know this!)

The person who dumped the trash on the sidewalk outside the church left several items in the trash that contained their name and address. (Across the street!) They left packaging from recent Amazon purchases and their final examinations from Law School. These items were given to the investigator from Street Services who took another look and found the ID card.

Meanwhile the Senior Lead Officer is convinced that no crime had been committed because the person who did the dumping says they called 311 for a pickup. The SLO was happy with the explanation, missing the “defrauding the city” and “illegal dumping” possibilities along with the trash that remained on the street.

The City of LA has Neighborhood Prosecutors who respond to quality of life issues, they simply need the cooperation of the LAPD. The LAPD has Senior Lead Officers but if they are limited to suggesting that residents do a better job of cleaning their streets, there is little hope that the Neighborhood Prosecutor will get LAPD support.

Sanitation cleans up big and bulky things but is not so good at the detail work. Meanwhile Street Services investigates illegal dumping and could balance the city’s budget crisis just by tracing the trash before it gets picked up and charging the offending parties the appropriate penalties.

As for Hollywood, it is your dumping ground. Your trash will be blamed on the renters, the Council Office will send the Beautification Team, the illegal dumping will get picked up for free, and the Senior Lead Officer will come around to suggest that the locals sweep the street up after you.

Seriously, illegal dumping takes place in Hollywood because it works!

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. You can also find him on Twitter and on Facebook.)

Emergencies in LA: Most Vulnerable Angelenos at Risk

CityWatch, Jan 13, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 4

RETHINKING LA - The fastest growing demographic group in America is senior citizens, a simple fact that should be guiding the City of LA as it goes through the charade of emergency preparedness planning, but one that isn’t even part of the dialogue.

The essence of emergency preparedness is based on the notion that in a true emergency, the people of Los Angeles must be self-sufficient, prepared to survive for days without public safety support, health services, water & power, sanitation, access to fresh food, or streets that work.

LA’s Fire Department conducts Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training that prepares community members for emergencies in a series of classes that progress from the basics of self-sufficiency to managing an evacuation shelter to advanced emergency medical skills.

The CERT training instills in individuals a hierarchy of emergency responses that is counterintuitive but essential, starting with protecting yourself, then protecting your loved ones, then protecting your neighbors. It may seem selfish to start with yourself but the message the instructors drill into the student’s heads is “You can’t help your loved ones and neighbors  if you allow yourself to become an immobilized or dead victim.”

The CERT training in self-sufficiency is an extremely powerful experience with applications on preparedness that resonate through other non-emergency scenarios, demonstrating at every turn that the most powerful tool we possess is the one between your ears.

It also serves to dramatize a painful oversight that has the potential to leave our largest demographic group vulnerable and on their own in the next major earthquake or fire or catastrophe that requires neighborhoods to evacuate in large numbers.

Quite simply, LA’s current emergency preparedness instructions for the seniors in our community, many of whom are already experiencing a lack of self-sufficiency, is “In the event of a serious disaster, everyone should be self-sufficient for at least three days without help or emergency services.”

It doesn’t take an expert in Gerontology to see the problem in this paradigm of emergency preparedness. Expecting a demographic group that is growing in numbers while experiencing a decrease in mobility and self-sufficiency in the best of times to suddenly become self-sufficient is simply civic malpractice.

Senior citizens currently represent 37% of our adult population and are projected to make up 45% by the year 2015. It’s estimated that men will outlive their ability to drive by 7 years, women by 10 years.

How then does the City of Los Angeles intend to guide this significantly sized and extremely vulnerable demographic group through the next emergency? By admonishing them to buy a “Go” bag and be prepared to evacuate on foot? By advising those who require assistance in the activities of daily living (ADL’s) such as grooming, dressing, going to the bathroom, and eating that they should be prepared to go several days on their own?

When Griffith Park was engulfed in fire and the adjacent Los Feliz neighborhood was evacuated, the surrounding streets and even the freeway was completely jammed with gridlock traffic. Residents walked out of the hillside community, some carrying a well fed lapcat or lapdog under one arm and a bag of prescription drugs under the other.

This is LA’s plan? Walk if you can, condolences if you can’t.

It was the CERT volunteers who set up the evacuation center at Marshall High School and provided services to those who were able to navigate the dark streets and find the solitary unlocked gate on a huge High School Campus. Other residents who were lucky enough to have friends and family near by, simply walked out of the neighborhood to prearranged pickup points and were whisked away to other neighborhoods.

But this scenario required the residents to self-mobilize and included no checks and balances to ensure that nobody was forgotten.

One would think that the City of LA would be better connected, that there would be some mechanism for identifying those who need assistance in an emergency and that there would be a plan in place for connecting with them.

In the summer of 1995, Chicago experienced a record heat wave that saw the city’s hard infrastructure buckle while the administration of city services simply collapsed, resulting in 739 excess deaths in one week.

At first glance, the explanation is simple, it was too hot and the most vulnerable died. But it wasn’t so simple.

In what was termed a “social autopsy,” researchers examined the factors that contributed to disproportionate numbers of casualties in some neighborhoods while equally physically vulnerable seniors in other neighborhoods survived the heat.

They discovered that it wasn’t the heat the killed 739 Chicago residents, it was isolation in the midst of a natural disaster.

Residents of communities with a strong social network were more likely to reach out to others when in crisis. Neighbors checked on each other and encouraged each other to move to cooling stations before it was too late.

Residents of communities with high mortality rates were made up of seniors who withdrew into their homes, who were less likely to answer a knock on the door, and who had no one to turn to when they were in crisis.

In other words, residents of neighborhoods with a strong “social ecology” survived while residents of neighborhoods that weren’t connected saw disproportionate casualties.

The City of LA has had over a decade to look at the Chicago experience and to evaluate LA’s emergency preparedness plan in the context of “connected communities” and the needs of our largest and most vulnerable constituent group and yet, where’s LA’s plan?

Well connected healthy communities are not only more likely to survive natural disasters but they also experience a reduction in crime and gang activity.

This was recently demonstrated when Mayor Villaraigosa and Police Chief Beck released the most recent crime data, touting the fact that crime rate was at the lowest that it's been since the 50's. The Mayor simply said it was "mind-boggling" but the Chief explained that it was due to good police work and the ever increasing role of the community in public safety.

One would think that these results would prompt the City of LA to double down on its social services commitment but the Mayor and the LAPD seem committed to the continual militarization of the police force rather than to an increasing commitment to engaging the community in the process.

This systemic dismissal of the importance of strong connected communities is evident as the LAPD moves forward with a plan to turn the old Rampart station into a SWAT station rather than fulfilling the wishes of the neighbors who envision a community center.

As for the seniors, they vote in greater numbers than any other age group yet they are forgotten during LA’s annual budget melee, victims of a Mayor and City Council that lacks the political will to commit basic resources to the city’s most vulnerable residents.

“Soft” health and social support services are delegated and redelegated, often falling on the shoulders of those who are ill-equipped or unwilling to accept responsibility. Through it all, it is the work of non-profit groups such as the Assistance League that creates the safety net and holds it together.

In times of calm, on any given day, LA’s police and fire departments respond to multiple calls from seniors who then receive transportation, emergency primary medical care, connection to social services, and safety support.

But...in times of disaster, the LAPD and the LAFD will be completely focused on the larger crisis and unable to respond to individual calls from residents who are limited in capabilities and mobility.

Watching Mayor Villaraigosa at the podium again, extolling the benefits of emergency preparedness, is to watch a demonstration in complete disconnect from reality.

Villaraigosa’s plan is to talk about preparedness while completely abdicating on his responsibility to implement a plan for connectivity, one that will take root now, not when it’s too late to do anything.

Dying young is a tragedy, but it pales in comparison to the real tragedy which is growing old in a city that takes you for granted and doesn’t have a plan for you in case of an emergency.

Seniors tend to live in one of five different housing arrangements, independently at their own home, in a retirement community with some support, at home but with some support, in an assisted living facility, and in a nursing home where physical and mental needs can be met.

If Villaraigosa is serious about emergency preparedness, he will produce five plans for LA’s senior community, demonstrating a commitment to connectivity that will ensure the survival of our most vulnerable yet significant age group.

If he can’t handle the task, it’s up to those of us who are willing and able. After all, we’ll all be there soon.

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

2012 Resolution: Put an End to Killer Meetings

CityWatch, Jan 3, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 1

RETHINKING LA - Public meetings are the bane of a community activist’s life, a necessary evil that demands attention and consumes incredible amounts of time, all while offering only the slimmest of hope that a moment of comment will change the course of history or at least impact the outcome of a vote.

In looking back over the past year and setting resolutions for the future, I resolve to spend less time in meetings and more time on other activities that move issues forward, that hold public officials accountable, and that engage the public in working together to improve our communities.

Most importantly, I intend to apply the “oversight and accountability” standard to the meetings that are conducted by the people who run this city.

As the City of Los Angeles wallows through the ongoing financial drought that has eviscerated departments and prompted budget cuts that squeeze department heads to cry for supplies and staffing, one of the most unregulated areas of operation is the meeting, the squandering of staffing in gatherings that are heavy on headcount and light on significance or impact.

A recent City Council meeting drew a full house, a standing room only crowd of members of the public, all eager to petition their government, to address the issues, to weigh in on the agenda items to be considered that day.

I saw a high-ranking member of the LA Police Department and greeted him, saying “Hey, welcome back! How was your vacation?” He glumly informed me that he was still on vacation, but was called in to represent the LAPD during a City Council resolution. He was not alone but was surrounded by a full contingent of LAPD brass.

Not to be outdone was the presence of LA’s Fire Department, represented by a small cluster of high-ranking officials in full uniform, buttons polished and gleaming, all standing by for hours on the slim chance that their presence would add anything significant to a process that was short of controversy and long on ceremony.

A reasonably concerned community activist could embark on the honorable road to poverty simply by engaging in the process and participating in the public comment charade. After all, who isn’t concerned with issues related to the LAPD and the LAFD?

Add to the public safety dialogue at City Hall a few CERT meetings, some CPAB meetings, a few neighborhood watch meetings, and the schedule is starting to fill up.

At some point, it becomes obvious that public safety is related to planning and land use issues and it becomes necessary to engage in the Community Plan journey, the local Planning Commission activities, the Neighborhood Council’s PLUM committee, and specific committees and authorities related to hills, valleys, rivers, parks, and anything with a view.

Another epiphany occurs and the connection between land use and transportation rears its well-funded head and Metro meetings appear on the calendar, surrounded by Measure R project meetings, Walkability audits, Ridability audits, Livability audits, and hearings over permit parking, apron parking, and metered parking.

Along the way, LA’s infrastructure sends a reminder that it would like some attention or it will simply collapse from loneliness, setting in motion a series of meetings with the Department of Water & Power, the Bureaus of Street Services, Sanitation, Engineering, and the Department of Transportation.

All this work is enough to drive even the most dedicated activist in search of diversion but a visit to a park or library simply sets in play another round of “Attend this meeting if you care about the future of...” meetings that simply suck the energy out of the most committed supporters.

Eventually, the accidental activist realizes that the battle to improve the quality of life and ensure the delivery of city services demands the full support of the respective elected officials, setting play another byzantine journey in search of representation.

It’s been my experience that the average person on the street is hard pressed to identify their City Council district, let alone their State Senator or Representative, a fact that is further complicated by the current redistricting process that has many communities in flux.

One would think that by now there would be a simpler process for engaging our elected officials in the process of serving their constituents, one that doesn’t require a trip to Sacramento, to a district office, to City Hall or to the County Hall of Administration.

Granted, there is something powerful about speaking in public but it’s also fairly late in the game to wait for public comment. One would think that 2012 would be a reasonable time for our elected officials to implement the digital tools that would allow the public to participate in the process without having to trade a half-day of personal time for 60 seconds of public comment.

San Francisco uses a smart phone application called SFGov as a tool for “making government more responsive and City services easier to access” according to Mayor Lee.

Boston uses “Citizens Connect” as a tool for engaging the public while other cities opt for a service called Government Outreach [[http://www.govoutreach.com/productscrmmobile.htm ]] that allows community members to get information, submit requests, send geo-tagged photos, and follow up on requests.

Councilmembers Garcetti and Krekorian have both demonstrated a commitment to utilizing social media tools in connecting with their constituents but their success must be balanced by the overall failings of the city as a whole to keep up with the times, with the technology, and with the demands that fall on the public.

Within the city family, the LAFD’s Brian Humphrey has been recognized for his mastery of social media as a mechanism for keeping the public informed, regardless of the platform they favor but again, his success is tempered by the LAPD’s Public Information Office which is still staffed by people who giggle when they say “twitter” out loud.

It’s 2012 and my first resolution is to spend less time in meetings, sitting idly and hoping that my 60 seconds of public comment will be meaningful. Instead I resolve to engage more, to participate with increased fervor, and to insist that the people who manage the process do so on a platform of modern tools and techniques.

Most importantly, I will work to ensure that the voice of the people count for something, that feedback is collected and tabulated, and that it amount to more than simple background noise as City Hall consumes staff time in obligatory meetings that maintain the status quo.

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

Occupy LA: A Salt Lick for Bullies

CityWatch, Dec 9, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 98

RETHINING LA - When the LAPD descended from Dodger Mountain and surveyed the battlefield, they must have felt like Goliath who looked at David and bellowed in rage “Am I a dog that you send a boy with a stick?”

The 1400 LAPD were wrapped from head to toe in protective armor that still smelled of mothballs, their training in hostile enemy conflict was untested, and their supervisors had warned them of biohazard dangers and provocateurs.

As hundreds of officers in paramilitary gear surrounded City Hall Park and fought to hold back spectators, media, and folks who had arrived in support of Occupy LA, a SWAT style team descended from City Hall in search of their enemy.

They found their neighbors, peaceful protesters who sat Indian-style, arms interlocked and chanting “We  Are Peaceful” and “We Are Nonviolent” and “Join Us.”

At this point, the shortcomings of a training  program that focuses on war and ignores peace were revealed. The bullies embedded within the LAPD found freedom to exercise their demons, to act on the rage they felt when they were denied the opportunity to unleash their skills on a violent enemy.

Faced with a docile crowd, the LAPD gave the instructions to disperse and many of the Occupy LA crowd simply walked out of City Hall Park. Most of them made it to the far side of the LAPD skirmish lines with the exception of some who actually followed the instructions carefully, only to find themselves faced with LAPD officers who then arrested them. This can be chalked up to confusion in the fog of war.

By this time, the Occupy LA camp had been reduced to debris by the LAPD, canopies shredded, belongings scattered, tent poles broken, and the demonstration of power was underway.

The LAPD made an announcement directing those who wished to be arrested to sit on the ground and some sat while others simply walked away.

When the time came to arrest those remaining in City Hall Park, the LAPD asked them to stand and walk out of the park. These people were charged with “failure to disperse” while those who remained seated on the ground qualified for the harsher charge of “resisting arrest.”

Zach Behrens, Editor of KCET, reports that fully 50% of the LAPD ranks have been hired in the last six years, an indication that the gung-ho LAPD of old is now filled with young officers who have been trained in the “constitutional policing” promise of Bratton and Beck.

That training failed to materialize, whether in the actions of those who used pain coercion tactics on peaceful protesters or in the failure of LAPD officers who witnessed their partners as they transformed into vindictive bullies who reveled in petty displays of terror.

The peaceful protesters had prepared for this moment, they had attended workshops where they learned how to communicate peace while subjected to pain and humiliation and yet they were shocked at the commitment to terror they experienced at the hands of the LAPD.

Patrick Meighan offers a well written first person account of his experience as an inner-circle protester, one who saw ankles twisted, wrenched, and then stepped on as bullies began a long evening of small violations that revealed a failure in the LAPD’s ability to train and control its troops.

Tyler Lyle had a different vantage point and his first person journal of his experience as an arrestee also reveals a dangerous and unchecked presence of bullies within the LAPD.

Many have argued that an arrest, by definition, is an uncomfortable experience that starts with the deprival of freedom. The stories of the Occupy LA arrestees are dismissed as the naive complaints of those who failed to weigh the risks when they set out to protest and to participate in voluntary arrest.

On the other hand, the law is quite clear that when an individual’s drive for satisfaction motivates them to inflict injury and pain on another, a serious law has been broken, one much more severe than failure to disperse or resisting arrest.

Was it necessary to use a bean-bag shotgun on an individual in a tree? Perhaps it was poor supervision and simply the wrong tool in the wrong hands.

Was it necessary to use hooks to pull the platform out of the tree, potentially causing protesters to fall to the ground? Again, maybe the supervisors gave bad instructions and perhaps the officers were poorly trained in the fine art of rescuing cats from trees.

Was it necessary to carry protesters out of the park and then toss them to the sidewalk face-first? Hard to dismiss this one as poor supervision, it’s starting to look like resentment and anger empowered bullies to begin acting out.

Was it necessary to zip-tie wrists so tightly that circulation was restricted, causing pain and nerve damage? This is a failure on the part of the supervisors and an opportunity for bullies to quietly inflict major pain while reveling in the cacophony of voices begging for relief.

From the arrestees left to sit in their own waste to the loud music played by the bus drivers to the petty denials of rights and the infliction of a punitive process, the first person accounts of the LAPD’s performance during the liberation of City Hall Park sound an alarm, we are surrounded by bullies in search of victims.

There is no excuse for the behavior of bullies and they have no place in a civilized society, whether at school, on the streets, in the workplace, in a park or in City Hall

Bullies are simply unacceptable.

Even worse than the behavior of bullies is the failure of witnesses to act, to stand up for the victims.

As the LAPD’s sweep of Occupy LA’s encampment took place, it is reported that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa stood to the side and observed the hostile arrest of a peaceful occupation, one that reportedly included the antisocial behavior of bullies.

It is on Villaraigosa’s shoulders to account for each and every bully who allowed a passive adversary to inflame their bruised ego in such a way that they acted out and intentionally caused pain and injury to satisfy their sadistic personal demons.

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

LAPD Caught Using Deadly (PR) Force

CityWatch, Dec 6, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 97

RETHINKING LA - As the dust settles on the now gated community of City Hall Park and the accolades over the LAPD’s “peaceful” engagement fade into background noise, it is apparent that the LAPD’s PR team is still working full force and with deadly force.

The first casualties occurred within the ranks of the embedded media, the “legitimate” media who were given access to the LAPD’s operations with a few strings attached. Apparently the conditions included avoiding tough questions and agreeing to act as a tool for the LAPD as the conversation continued.

LAPD media dies on the battlefield and a co-opted PR machine rises in its place.

Consider the recent LA Times report on the identities of those arrested during the removal of Occupy LA from City Hall Park. Did the LAPD feed this to the Times the way they “release” data on gang members as a mechanism for building an injunction case? Why did the data include employment information but nothing relevant such as the reason for arrest, whether charges had been filed, if the person had been released, and the bail amount?

While family members visited different jails in search of their loved ones but encountered a lack of information and a wall of “It takes time to process this many arrestees!” The LA Times was able to print a list of names on December 1, 2011 that included detail such as occupation, age, race, and location of residence.

How is the LAPD so clear when it comes to feeding the press but so confused when it comes to helping families find loved ones?

The second casualty was the LAPD’s commitment to Community Policing, a law enforcement strategy that relies on a partnership between the community and the police.

While the LAPD claims the high-road for restraining its forces from using pepper spray and batons, the “shock and awe” display was a clear “us vs. them” approach that positions the LAPD as the liberating army, not the partners in public safety.

When it takes 1400 police officers in military grade riot gear to arrest 300 protesters who have trained publicly in non-violent protest strategies, it is evident that the LAPD has no confidence in its ability to forge relationships, negotiate a peaceful process of arrests, and treat people with respect.

It’s important to note that the Occupy LA protesters initially engaged the LAPD and other law enforcement officers with cheers of “One of us!” and “We’re all 99%!” but that faded quickly as the LAPD worked hard to offend all, including spectators and non-pool media.

Officer Escamilla is captured on video pointing his shotgun at a reporter who yelled “You just pointed your weapon at me, that’s not necessary!” The LAPD officer in riot gear responded by leaning in and saying “Don’t worry about it!”

The LAPD’s “shock and awe” approach to Occupy LA is reminiscent of the LAPD’s approach to gangs under Chief Gates, one that depended on significant force and a “gung-ho” approach to policing.

If the LAPD’s military approach to Occupy LA is any indication, the people of LA can expect them to use this recent engagement as an argument for increasing their budget, their authority and their occupation of the City of Los Angeles.

The third casualty of the Occupy LA movement was the LAPD’s memory. Ten years ago, during the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, the LAPD came under fire for its handling of people arrested during everything from a bike ride, a concert, protests, and the convention itself.

The City paid out huge settlements based on the way arrestees where handled after their arrest, including the street detention, the bus trip, the multiple strip searches, the denial of access to lawyers and family, and the lengthy custody resulting in release with no charges filed.

In other words, the process becomes the punishment and the punishment comes without conviction.

The recent Occupy LA stories of the LAPD’s inability to smoothly process the detention of 300 protesters mimics the experiences of the 70 detainees during the DNC in 2000 who were awarded almost a million dollars simply based on the punitive process. And yet, the LAPD still relied on the LA Sheriff’s Department to transport the arrestees and the LAPD still concluded their engagement with no evident plan for processing the anticipated detainees.

Now that the LAPD’s PR machine has slowed down, perhaps the people of LA could share in a moment of silence as we mourn the recent casualties of the LAPD’s military engagement, including LA’s “legitimate” media, any delusions of the LAPD’s commitment to community policing, the LAPD’s connection with history and its ability to learn from the past.

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

Occupy LA: The Death of Mainstream Media

Photo by Alex Thompson 

CityWatch, Dec 2, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 96

RETHINKING LA -The LAPD’s full-force eviction of Occupy LA from City Hall Park left a very crowded high road in its wake as the Mayor, the LAPD, and the occupiers all shared credit for their commitment to respect, restraint, and cooperation as the two month long occupation came to an end.

An estimated 1400 LAPD officers participated in the well planned operation to evict the Occupy LA encampment which had swelled to about 1000 participants who had prepared for the confrontation with training in nonviolent civil disobedience.

As the LAPD shed its hard core reputation and as the Occupy LA movement held to its nonviolent principles, it was the media who caved in and who were left behind as casualties on the battlefield.

Two nights earlier, the evening of the Mayor’s deadline, it was the media who drew the LAPD’s first threat of arrest when they swarmed to the Occupy LA encampment in such numbers that they prevented Commander Andy Smith from crossing the street from LAPD headquarters to City Hall.

The next night, the LAPD sent an email to the limited number of  “legitimate” media contacts in their files, giving two hour notice of a meeting where the LAPD would conduct a lottery to select the dozen media representative who would have access to the Occupy LA eviction.

While the notion of “legitimate” media is a subject worthy of great debate, it’s safe to say that the era of print, radio, and television dominance has long passed. The LAPD’s commitment to an antiquated paradigm of communication is in stark contrast to its demonstration of innovation in tactics and operations.

The LAPD participates in a notification service known as Nixle that allows the public to opt-in for law enforcement and public safety communications. Several days before the Occupy LA eviction, the LAPD sent out a message inviting the public to text “OLA999” to 888-777 in order to participate in the LAPD Occupy LA Information Messaging System.

The LAPD then sent a message on the 24th saying there would be no eviction that night and another message on the 28th asking the Media to move their trucks from Main Street.

That was it, no more, nothing.

Maybe the LAPD felt so comfortable surrounded by old friends from the “legitimate” media that they went back to their “pager” notification protocols.

As the LAPD Public Information Officers (PIOs) and those media representatives selected to participate in the LAPD’s approved Media Pool surveyed the Occupy LA encampment on the evening of the eviction operation, the “legitimate” media’s tenuous grip on its Fourth Estate role weakened as most pool members agreed to abstain from phone calls and from Twitter activity.

Two members of the pool broke the Twitter embargo but @StoltzeFrankly stayed safe with tweets such as "#OccupyLA massive police operation against OLA begins.” and “#OccupyLA Police issue ten minute dispersal order.” while @AntonioNBCLA forgot the #occupyLa hashtag and has only 138 followers so his tweets failed to find an audience.

The concept of a Media Pool isn’t new, it’s often used in controlled spaces such as courtrooms and it involves selecting press representatives who agree to feed their reports to a pool so that all participants share in the information, releases, photos, video, etc.

The problem here is that the Media Pool consisted of only media outlets approved by the LAPD, an organization that was unable to explain the process for certification other than that it involved “a letter from your boss explaining why you need an LAPD Press Pass.”

The most disturbing failure of the “legitimate” media came when KCAL9’s helicopter coverage of the LAPD’s Dodger Stadium staging grounds went dark, victim to self-imposed censorship that came with the explanation "To protect the integrity of the police operation we are not showing you that shot right now."

As the anticipated battle between the LAPD and Occupy LA turned into a tightly orchestrated and well-choreographed display of professionalism and principle, the real struggle turned out to be one between the Main Stream Media and Citizen Journalism.

As the MSM kowtowed to the LAPD and traded their Fourth Estate cards for LAPD Press Passes, it was the public who fed the world with words, experiences, pictures, videos, commentary, narrative, interviews, and perspective. The tools were cell phones and mini-cams which fed Twitter, Facebook, and UStream.

The Main Stream Media television broadcasts required trucks and personnel which resulted in minimal coverage and maximum commercial breaks while reporters, tethered to their team, struggled to find the story.

The LA Times, to its credit, learned from the Citizen Journalists and rigged a UStream camera on top of their building for the night of the eviction, feeding a constant stream of video of the 1st and Spring intersection.

But, they were learning, not leading and it was individuals such as CrossXBones and Occupy Oakland Live who provided constant access to the encampment, to the police, to the spectators in the street, to the media, and to Mayor Villaraigosa and Chief Beck when they stepped out onto 1st Street to recap the eviction.

Let there be no mistake, the City of LA has much to be proud of, including the LAPD which established a new standard for peaceful engagement and the Occupy LA participants who stayed true to the principles of peaceful protest.

While the issue of 1st Amendment rights continues to get debated and the issue of the 4th and 14th Amendments gets overlooked and forgotten, there is still room to celebrate the fact that the LAPD and Occupy LA both left the battlefield victorious and with no casualties.

On the other hand, the Main Stream Media fell on its sword and dealt itself a near-mortal blow that has robbed it of any claim of “legitimacy” and any hope of sympathy from the public it betrayed.

Rising to the occasion comes the Citizen Journalist, UStream hosts such as SkyAdams and Spencer, photographers such as Alex Thompson,  Alfredo Hernandez, Ivan Therrien and Richie Thomassen, and countless contributors to Twitter and Facebook that kept the conversation going, even as the “legitimate” media went silent and betrayed its audience.

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

Los Angeles: Occupy Gridlock

Photo by wisdomquarterly.blogspot.com

CityWatch, Nov 29, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 95

RETHINKING LA - Commander Andy Smith reported for duty at 8pm on the eve of the anticipated LAPD eviction of the Occupy LA encampment from LA’s City Hall lawn. As he stood in front of the LAPD headquarters and looked across the street at City Hall, he did what any self-respecting Angeleno would do, he hopped in his vehicle and began the commute across the street.He didn’t make it.

One of the first LAPD crowd control demands was directed at the media who had turned out in such numbers that they literally blocked the street, making it impossible for occupiers to occupy and police officers to police.

"Members of the media,” came the announcement from the LAPD command vehicle stuck in the traffic, “you will be arrested if you are in the street."

This amplified announcement drew protesters like a salt lick draws deer, prompting Smith to turn the threat of arrest from the media to the pedestrians.

Smith made it into the middle of the intersection of 1st and Spring before he lost the battle to gridlock, this time caused by streets overflowing with pedestrians, many who came to watch the spectacle.

The mass of people in the street numbered thousands, many from the Occupy LA movement and many who came to witness the showdown between the Mayor and Occupy LA.

At one point the LAPD shut down surrounding streets and established a perimeter of LAPD presence including squad cars lined up in formation and skirmish lines of riot police in full costume, including helmets, masks, batons, and shotguns.

Riot Police in formation jogged up 1st street only to find themselves outnumbered by photographers who jogged alongside in an effort to capture a photo of “the moment of reckoning.”

It never came.

Mayor Villaraigosa and Chief of Police Charlie Beck had previously announced that City Hall Park would be closed at 12:01 am on the morning of November 28, 2001 (Sunday night/Monday morning) and that any Occupy LA occupants would be subject to eviction.

As it turned out, 12:01 am was the moment when the Mayor, the City Council, the LAPD, the community as a whole and the Occupy LA movement all missed their cue.

It was the squandered opportunity.

As the world watched, the Mayor failed to show up and to embrace the high ground as common ground by establishing that the demands of the Occupy LA movement are of greater importance than a debate over turf lawn and the sustainability of the occupation.

Villaraigosa missed the opportunity to grapple with the issues and to demonstrate unique leadership by declaring “We’re all part of the 99%!” and then moving the dialogue forward by championing the issues and demonstrating his ability to think big picture while addressing local needs.

Missing from the debate was the City Council who entered the fray early in the occupation but quickly exited when it became apparent that it might require taking a position on issues a little heavier than dog licenses and curb cuts.

The exception was Bill Rosendahl who showed up 12 hours in advance of “the moment of reckoning” to declare the Occupy LA movement “Democracy at its finest” before he urged the occupiers to “respect the law and leave peacefully.” The crowd responded vehemently with chants of “No way!”

Commander Andy Smith’s “Command Vehicle” approach to crossing the street demonstrated a complete failure to embrace Beck’s Community Policing approach to building relationships, one that left the occupiers in the dark as to the identities of LAPD leadership.

After two months of City Hall Park occupation, one would expect that the occupiers would be on a first name basis with the LAPD leadership and that the LAPD would know where to find the leaders of the “leaderless” occupation.

Four million Angelenos definitely have a vested interest in issues that include the collapsing economy, home foreclosures, corporate personhood, campaign reform, homelessness, collapsing infrastructure, unemployment, dwindling city services, and yet the response to Occupy LA has ranged from approval to contempt to the worst of all, apathy and indifference.

The Occupy LA movement definitely turned the national and local dialogue to the issues of the occupation but those most greatly impacted failed to seize the opportunity to move the power from the lawn and into neighborhood councils, through City Hall, up to Sacramento, and all the way to Washington.

As the world watched, the Occupy LA movement had its closeup, one that included live helicopter coverage of surrounding streets and the LAPD deployment activities as well as the crowds in the street, the Mobile DJ who pulled up to entertain, the Media trucks that competed with the LAPD for prime parking spaces, and the spectators who were separated by LAPD skirmish lines.

The Occupy LA movement Tweeted updates with such volume that the #OccupyLA feed was difficult to follow. UStream broadcast more than a dozen live video feeds from different vantage points within City Hall Park. Chat room chatter on the Occupy LA website allowed people from around the world to participate in real time. Facebook conversations were fueled by updates from occupiers and spectators.

In stark contrast, the LAPD’s Nixle.com notification system was silent.

The Occupy LA movement owned the moment and when it came time to present “the message” it fumbled, failing to seize the closeup moment by stepping to the spotlight and delivering a well rehearsed, tightly crafted list of demands and a passionate call to action.

The Occupy LA movement will move forward when it is willing to let go of the lawn and move to the high ground by establishing common ground with the people of LA, reaching out to those who embrace the same desires for a new system and establishing relationships that are focused on change.

The Occupy LA movement has earned bragging rights for its enviable accomplishments at City Hall, including the creation of a “complete” community that includes health services, a library, a university, childcare, a theatre, a zero waste strategy, food service, and public works.

But creating an alternative universe in the shadow of City Hall was never the objective, it was always simply a tactic for changing a system that has been failing the people of this country for too long.

The Occupy LA movement will wither on the dusty and dead lawn of LA’s City Hall if it does not return its focus to establishing common ground by returning its focus to the systemic issues that resonate through the City of Los Angeles, the State of California and the United States as a whole.

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

Charlie Beck’s Anniversary is a Walk in the Park

CityWatch, Nov 25, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 64

RETHINKING LA - Chief of Police Charlie Beck celebrated his second anniversary as LA’s top cop by walking the beat, this time through the Bank of America Plaza where he chatted with Occupy LA protesters who had set up a camp on the bank’s property.

Beck occupies a unique position in the world of Occupy protests and is one of the only Police Chiefs in the country to establish a relationship with protesters that is based on respect and dignity.
Los Angeles stands alone in its deferential handling of the Occupy LA protest, demonstrating a commitment to the constitutional rights of the protesters that is in stark contrast to the violent behavior in cities such as Davis, Portland, Oakland, and New York City.

Beck’s walk through the Plaza, just like his walks through City Hall Park, demonstrated a commitment to community policing, one that treats the Occupy movement as a community that deserves a relationship.

Beck’s commitment to “rule of law” policing is the foundation of his law enforcement philosophy, a position that he emphasized when he was just one of several applicants vying for the Chief’s position that opened up when Bratton left town.

During the confirmation process, Beck declared “We don’t break the law to enforce the law.”

As Mayor Villaraigosa approaches the end of his second term in office and the field of candidates who want to serve as Mayor of Los Angeles fills up, it is important to note that Beck is rumored to be considering retirement in 2014, meaning the new Mayor will be selecting a new Chief.

That means the people of LA must speak now to help the Mayoral candidates frame their public safety platforms in the context of selecting a new Chief.

That also means the people of LA must speak now to help the candidates for Chief of Police know what kind of community policing strategies are best for LA.

The candidates for Mayor currently include City Council President Eric Garcetti, City Controller Wendy Greuel, Councilwoman Jan Perry, Austin Beutner, and Kevin James.

Now is the time to hold these candidates responsible for establishing a position on the constitutional rights of the Occupy LA protesters.

The likely candidates for Chief of Police include Assistant Chief Earl Paysinger, Deputy Chief Michel Moore, Deputy Chief Kirk Albanese, Deputy Chief Sandy Jo MacArthur, Deputy Chief Debra McCarthy, Deputy Chief Jose Perez, Deputy Chief Rick Jacobs, Deputy Chief Jorge Villegas, Commander Sharon Papa, and Commander John Sherman.

They’re all veterans with long resumes, many of them have been through Chief of Police selection process before, but this is a new day in LA and the next Chief will either move us forward in a commitment to community policing or return us to the “war room” mentality of days gone by.

Now is the time to send a message to those in charge of LAPD operations, including Paysinger and Jacobs, that the world is watching and that they are responsible for defending the Constitutional rights of those who petition their government.

Now is the time to send a message to those in charge of LA’s relationship with Occupy LA, including Perez and Sherman, that the people living in City Hall Park are Angelenos and that the actions witnessed in Davis and Oakland and on Wall Street are not acceptable in Los Angeles.

Now is the time to send a message to those in charge of Bureau operations, such as Villegas and McCarthy, that their record for building community relationships is their strength and that partnerships prevail where tactical gear fails.

It is important to note that Mayor Villaraigosa is under pressure and as the President of the US Conference of Mayors, he declared in his inaugural speech "Mayors, we can't afford to be timid." As he develops an exit strategy and works on his next appointment at the federal level, it is reasonable to expect him to feel pressure to toughen up his approach to Occupy LA.

This will put pressure on Beck and his command staff to act decisively, perhaps while Villaraigosa is out of town, leaving the responsibility on the shoulders of the City Council President.

The time to speak up is in advance of the impending action, not afterward in a replay of the Davis pepper spray assault that has left a trail of damaged careers in its wake.

The world is watching and the City of LA has an opportunity to demonstrate that it is a new city, one that embraces the rights of its residents and treats people with respect and dignity.

It won’t happen by accident. It will only happen if the people of LA speak up, establish priorities and a commitment to the rule of law, and communicate their expectations clearly to the Mayor, the City Council, and the LAPD.

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

Bicycle Awareness: For Those in Power, Ignorance is Still Bliss!

CityWatch, Oct 21, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 84

RETHINKING LA - Law enforcement officers are fond of quoting the popular standard "ignorance of the law excuses no one" when dealing with the public but when faced with an accusation of scofflaw behavior, suddenly ignorance is a solid defense.

The LAPD officers responsible for the blocked Bike Lane pictured above are going to have a hard time explaining why they were out shopping on Sunset Blvd instead of protecting and serving, but as for the illegal parking job, it’s not their fault. They merely need to plead ignorance and then point to the DMV.

After all, the DMV’s “Wilco Tango Foxtrot” interpretation of the California Vehicle Code specifies “You may park in a bicycle lane if your vehicle does not block a bicyclist and/or there is not a "No Parking" sign posted.”

From the top down, the State of California and the City of Los Angeles need to get together and embark on an education program directed at those in charge, those responsible for operating this state and this city.

Between the DMV’s car-centric creative interpretation of the law and the CHP’s complete ignorance of the rules of the road as they apply to pedestrians and cyclists, [link] it is apparent that the real opportunity to make our streets safer for everybody is to start with those in power.

Last year, the LAPD developed a Bicycle Awareness training [link] program for its officers that firmly established the rights of cyclists on the streets and replaced “ride to the right” with “ride where it’s right” as the principle for lane positioning.

Bike Activists were given the opportunity to participate in the development of the program and the Cyclist/LAPD Task Force was optimistic that the Bicycle Awareness training would have a significant impact on the streets, turning LAPD officers into partners, not adversaries.

Unfortunately, the mandate to participate in the training program was not as significant as the promises made to the cycling community and it is now easier to find officers who have never heard of the program than it is to find officers who have participated and who understand the concepts.

Just last week, a LAPD Supervisor responsible for special events went into a tirade over “cyclists who impede traffic by taking up the whole lane” and “cyclists who ride side by side.” The street that he was referring to, San Fernando Road, has two lanes in both directions with a left turn pocket in the center. This LAPD Supervisor needs to engage in some Bike Awareness training before he spreads any more mis-information about cyclists and “impeded traffic.”

The DASH bus operator pictured here was headed north on Vermont Avenue when he came up behind me and my wife as we rode our bikes in the curb lane. Instead of dropping behind us to pull to the curb, this guy honked from behind, then pulled alongside on our left, “asserted” himself and moved to the curb in the direction of his bus stop.

His willful violation of CVC 27001(a) and CVC 21750 clearly demonstrate that this “professional” bus operator is either ignorant of the law or a scofflaw, in either case, unfit for service.

The City of LA’s Department of Transportation is responsible for operating a fleet of 400 buses that provides 30 million trips per year aboard the DASH, the Commuter Express, Cityride, Shuttles and Charter services.

Simply training the operators of those 400 buses on the rights of cyclists would make the streets safer but that Bicycle Awareness program never made it out of the hands of the LAPD.

Passing a cyclist is no cause to honk, in fact it distracts the cyclist at the worst possible moment, in this case as the operator is about to illegally and unsafely force the cyclist from the road in violation of the prohibition against “interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle.”

Complaints to the LADOT typically result in an obtuse explanation of the Byzantine network of contractors who operate the LADOT’s transit system, one that allows the City of LA to avoid responsibility for educating its bus operators on Bicycle Awareness. (link)

LA County’s Metro is the largest operator of buses in the region and it still has a training manual that instructs its operators to sound the horn for “cyclists and other road hazards.”

The Metro’s Chairman of the Board is LA’s Mayor Villaraigosa and LA controls three other seats which are filled by City Councilman José Huizar, Richard Katz, and Mel Wilson. In other words, the City of LA has a tremendous impact on the operation of the Metro and a tremendous responsibility for its performance.

Perhaps it’s time to share the LAPD’s Bicycle Awareness program with the Metro!

LA’s Department of Water & Power moves a lot of equipment through the streets of Los Angeles, relying on a combination of staff and contractors to operate its fleet of trucks.

The incident pictured here is still being debated by LA’s policy makers and City Attorney, resulting in a clear demonstration of the need for greater education and an understanding of the rules of the road. Are crosswalks an extension of the sidewalk? If so, can cyclists ride in the crosswalk? If not, how do we explain the Orange Line Bike Path?

Through it all, once the debate is put aside, the important thing to remember is that the City of LA operates huge pieces of equipment on local neighborhood streets that are surrounded with homes, populated with families, and filled with pedestrians and cyclists who have as much right to the streets as the professional vehicle operators moving the City of LA’s equipment.

LA is a company town and our neighborhoods are Hollywood’s backlot. That’s one of the things that makes LA such a magical city.

But the people who issue film permits don’t seem to realize that a Bike Lane is a traffic lane, that it is not simply an extension of the parking lane. Most importantly, Trucks that are 8’6” wide don’t fit into a parking lane that is 7’ wide. [link]

The City of LA issues film permits and retired LAPD officers in uniform provide traffic control for the film shoots begging the question, “Who is responsible for their training and education?”

The film shoot pictured above should have lane closure and traffic control so that cyclists riding downhill on Sunset get the same respect that motorists would get if the lane ahead were closed.

Some of the greatest threats to a cyclist have nothing to do with the operators of large vehicles and everything to do with those responsible for repairs and maintenance. [link]

Detours that appear with no warning, manhole covers that aren’t flush with the surface of the street, cracks between asphalt and cement bus pads, gutter pans that aren’t flush, poorly positioned water mains, divets from special event equipment, and drain grates that run parallel to the curb are all deadly road hazards for cyclists.

For all the promise of Eurotopian Bikeway engineering, the real opportunity to engineer our streets for cyclists is to start by educating those responsible for maintenance and repair of our streets on the needs of cyclists and on the difference between a Hummer and a Huffy.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has embraced cycling as a viable mode of transportation and has committed to supporting cyclists with the full force of his Mayoral authority, directing City of LA department heads to partner with him in making LA a Bike Friendly city.

If he is serious about his commitment, he’ll make Bike Education a priority and he’ll start by educating the City Family on Bicycle Awareness, from the LAPD to the DWP to the LADOT.

Imagine 40,000 City of LA employees going about their business with a new sensitivity to how streets work, to the rights of cyclists, to the repair, and maintenance of streets so that they are safe for everybody.

For all the talk of “40 miles a year” of Bikeways improvement and millions of dollars in Measure R money, the real opportunity to move LA forward immediately is to embrace Bike Education, for cyclists, for motorists, for the LAPD, for the engineers, for the policy makers and the pothole fillers, so that the people who use the streets understand how to integrate cyclists into the traffic mix.

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

LA’s Housing Department: Scofflaw Landlord

CityWatch, Oct 14, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 82

RETHINKING LA - What do you do when one of LA’s largest landlords fails to perform its business according to the law and creates a condition that leaves tenants, neighbors, and property owners vulnerable to crime, blight, and unsafe conditions?

The simple answer is to call LA’s Housing Department (LAHD) which is responsible for providing oversight to approximately 780,000 rental units throughout the City of LA.

LAHD conducts a series of programs that all have some authority over the establishment, operation, maintenance, and occupancy of rental units and is responsible for inspecting properties, protecting tenants from illegal evictions, and ensuring safe and inhabitable conditions.

But who do you call when LA’s Housing Department (LAHD) is the de facto landlord, a situation that is becoming more common as the LAHD continues to inflate its real estate portfolio through the controversial Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP).

Ideally, the REAP program applies to properties that have ongoing health and safety violations, and unresolved notices of compliance. The LAHD first cites the landlord, then intervenes and collects the rent from the tenants, offering a discount of up to 50% as amends for the substandard conditions, ensuring that the repairs are performed and that the property is brought up to standards.

In reality, the LAHD has incurred the wrath of the last two City Controllers, prompting Laura Chick to declare “REAP is broken!” in 2001 and Wendy Greuel to demand “Show me the money!” in a 2010 audit that revealed LAHD somehow failed to even try to collect $48 million in fees and rent owed to the department.

Critics of the REAP program, and there are many, include tenants who live in buildings that provide safe refuge to protected squatters, landlords who lose rental income which leads to foreclosure, and neighbors who live next to properties that go into a downward spiral of LAHD decline.

In East Hollywood, there is a 74 unit building that fell victim to the LAHD’s REAP program, incurring code violations that triggered citations that accrued and resulted in the property being “seized” by the LAHD which then collected the rent and left the landlord in foreclosure proceedings.

Fans of the REAP program claim that it protects the tenants, ensures repairs and maintenance, and gives teeth to the inspections and citations and demands for performance.

Critics claim that savvy tenants can reduce their rent by up to 50% by damaging the property, initiating the complaints and subsequent inspections, and putting the property into a REAP tailspin that results in foreclosure and safe-haven for squatters.

The 74 unit building in East Hollywood serves as testimony to the doomsday critics, resulting in a tenant claim that “our lawyers are helping the drug dealers to stay in the apartment building.” The tenants are embroiled in a two-year-long legal journey that pits lawyers against property managers as the LAHD stands by, leaving drug dealers and prostitutes “squatting” as they wait in line for a settlement.

The LAPD’s Senior Lead Officer for the neighborhood reported that in one single day, the property was responsible for four calls, “Man with a gun, prostitution, drug activity, and gang activity.”

The good tenants who can afford to move have left the building, the bad tenants have burrowed in for the payoff, the landlord is fighting to reclaim the property, the LAPD contends they are helpless without the City Attorney’s support, the neighbors are reaching out for help, and the LAHD continues to operate the REAP program as if there are no problems.

Farther down the street, there is a small Craftsman house built in 1913. It has a separate two-story apartment at the back of the property and it sits next to similarly sized houses that are owner occupied.

Approximately a year ago, the LAHD placed the Craftsman house and the rear apartment in the REAP program, demonstrating that simply having one rental unit on a property leaves it vulnerable to the grim REAPer. The house and the apartment went into the typical tailspin, the property owner and the tenant left, and the buildings are now home to squatters who arrive mid to late evening and then leave early in the morning.

Apparently the LAHD’s inspectors work 9 to 5, interrupting the squatters’ routine only slightly, a small inconvenience that allows for free accommodations with plenty of off-street parking.

The current list of REAP properties ranges from duplexes to buildings with hundreds of rental units. Properties are added to the LAHD’s portfolio on a regular basis, bringing the current total to almost 1700 separate buildings.

The LAHD has just been taken to task by the City Controller for failing to collect $48 million in fees and rents, for sitting on $10 million in dormant accounts, and for failing to administer the funds collected to ensure effective inspections and oversight.

Add to this the ongoing claims of erratic and inconsistent oversight, inspections, and enforcement and it is apparent that LA’s Department of Housing is not only one of the largest landlords in Los Angeles. It is also one of the most irresponsible.

LA’s Housing Department must comply with the same law it sets out to enforce, it must impose the same standards on itself that it imposes on others, and it must do it within the same 30 day deadline.

Most of all, it must face the same threat of foreclosure and loss of income that others face. That’s when the playing field will level and the tenants, the landlords, and the neighbors of Los Angeles will be protected.

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

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 .)

East Hollywood Answer to Crime: Take a Walk

CityWatch, Sept 6, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 71

RETHINKING LA - Thursday evenings in East Hollywood are for walking and all summer long, residents from throughout the community have gathered at a different neighborhood each week to walk, to make new friends, to partner on public safety, and to share stories of the past and hopes for the future. The East Hollywood Street Beat was born out of frustration. Local homeowners had responded to the recent crime wave in the community by building over-in-height fences to protect their families and their homes.

This last ditch effort to combat crime didn’t prompt the City Attorney to partner with the LAPD in the enforcement of Gang Injunctions or in Abatement Actions. Instead, it drew the wrath of LA’s Department of Building & Safety which went after 177 homeowners, citing them for code violations that generate revenue but fail to address public safety.

The City Attorney partnered with Building & Safety in levying fines, fees, penalties and variances that cost $350, $550, $1925, and $4800, all so that a homeowner can keep the fence they built to protect their home and family. This City Attorney action came with threats of “lien, garnishment, and other legal actions.”

It was against this backdrop of bureaucratic selective enforcement and misguided priorities that yet another attempted robbery took place. The family who called the police received a lecture from responding LAPD patrol officers on crime prevention measures that included securing person and property against criminal attack.

The demonstrated disconnect between the LAPD’s advice and the City Attorney’s actions sent a clear message to the residents of this low-income and high-crime community that public safety was a Do-It-Yourself project.

It was on that night, just as the LAPD patrol departed and the long warm summer nights arrived, that the East Hollywood Street Beat was born, a simple movement to encourage local residents to walk the streets, often and everywhere.

The following week, as the Street Beat gathered in the first of the 11 different East Hollywood neighborhoods, the LAPD arrived in a patrol car with the ominous advice, “This is a tough neighborhood. Be careful!”

The LAPD officers were invited join the Street Beat but they rejected the invitation, explaining, “We need our tactical gear and we're not at liberty to leave our vehicle.”

East Hollywood is a border town, one that rests between the LAPD’s West and Central Bureaus, resulting in oversight from three different LAPD divisions - Northeast, Rampart and Hollywood. A crime at the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard & Normandie Avenue can involve all three divisions, creating a bureaucratic maze that is difficult to navigate.

It took some coaxing from the community, and some support from Chief Beck, Assistant Chief Paysinger, Deputy Chief Perez, and Commander Villegas, but it wasn’t long before the Street Beats had the full support and participation of the LAPD.

Rampart’s Capt. Sanders joined the Street Beat for a Normandie Avenue BBQ, Northeast’s Capt. Murphy demonstrated some serious diplomatic skills as the Street Beat walked to Barnsdall, and Hollywood’s Capt. Girmala toured Thai Town while engaging homeowners in one-on-one discussions of their public safety issues.

In a neighborhood that is filled with traffic that moves at blistering speeds, the opportunity to slow down life to a walking pace gave locals a unique opportunity to share their concerns with the LAPD. On one evening, the LAPD dropped from the walk twice, first as the Street Beat walked through a domestic violence scene and second when it walked through an illegal drug sale.

This was a clear demonstration of the underlying issue that prompted the over-in-height fences in the first place. If locals can’t walk their neighborhood without walking through criminal activity, they insulate their families, they isolate their children, and they do what’s best to protect their homes.

As the Street Beat headed north on a residential street a few weeks ago, it passed an apartment building that had been the subject of “man running with gun, gang activity, drug sales, and prostitution” reports, all in the day prior to the walk. While the LAPD expressed frustration that they were limited in their enforcement authority, the City Attorney was unable to offer Abatement Action support because of “budget cuts.”

It was the contrast of the City Attorney’s laissez-faire attitude to the transactions between criminals in a REAP property occupied by squatters against the City Attorney’s actions against homeowners who act to protect themselves by building fences that struck the Street Beat participants as an example of a City upside down in priorities.

Along the way, the East Hollywood Street Beat transitioned from a “take back the streets” public safety initiative into an “embrace the legacy” community pride initiative.

LANI and studioneleven, the folks behind the Virgil Village Traffic Calming project, joined the Street Beat to share the community’s vision for turning Virgil Village into a more walkable street with great public space and parklets that encourage people and supported the local economy.

The legacy of Route 66 was a reoccurring theme on the walks and different community leaders took turns in sharing their connection to “America’s Main Street.” From the old Jay's Burgers to the last library built by Carnegie, from the old Campus Theatre to the Hollywood Star Lanes where the Big Lebowski was shot, Route 66 was always full of surprises.

The Street Beat visited the Melrose Church (est 1905), Immaculate Heart of Mary (est 1912), Kairos and theRussian Orthodox Church, enjoying a bit of history, a bit of perspective, and great company from new friends who joined the walks.

To suggest that going for a walk is a virtuous activity is not new. Einstein said that going for a walk was key to problem solving. Native Americans contend that walking in the shoes of another is the key to understanding. Nietzsche claimed that all truly great thoughts are conceived by walking.

The East Hollywood Street Beat is joined by other great community walks.

The Big Parade is a two-day walk through Los Angeles that starts at Angel’s Flight and ends at the Hollywood Sign. Led by Dan Koeppel, also famous for his tours of LA’s hidden stairs, the Big Parade is equal parts community building, athletic endeavor, and history lesson.

The Great LA Walk is an annual event that starts at One Wilshire and follows Wilshire Avenue west for 16 miles, until it simply runs out of land. Led by “Mike and Maria” of Franklin Avenue, this urban safari is “part discovery, part gawking tour and part epic celebration of LA’s grand boulevard.

Each year 66 Productions leads a series of walks that cover the western 66 miles of Route 66 in walks that average 6 miles each. The Route 66 tours focus on the history of “The Mother Road” and they come right down Sunset to Santa Monica Boulevard where they turn west and walk right through East Hollywood where they may end up joining the Street Beat.

The East Hollywood Street Beat continues to walk on Thursday nights, this week in Kingsley Vista with friends from the LAPD’s Hollywood Division.

“Walk the streets,

meet your neighbors,

stroll with the LAPD,

make new friends,

take back the streets,

one step at a time.”

Next East Hollywood walk:

Thursday, September 8, 2011

7 pm - 9 pm

802 N. Normandie

Los Angeles, CA 90029

For more information on the East Hollywood Street Beat, call 213-422-7694.

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