15 Candidates Jostle for Position in the CD 15 Election Line

CityWatch, Nov 1, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 87

RETHINKING LA - There is no shortage of aspirational leadership in the race to fill the empty city council seat that represents district 15, a meandering piece of real estate that stretches from Watts through the Gateway to Wilmington, Harbor City, and San Pedro.

The City Clerk has certified 11 candidates for the ballot plus 4 write-in candidates for a total of 15 candidates who are all vying for the city council seat that was vacated when Janice Hahn was elected to Congress this past summer.

10 of the 15 candidates appeared at the Watts Neighborhood Council Forum this past Saturday and demonstrated that the real challenge in this race is the need to stand out from the pack.

The field includes 2 ex-City Councilmembers, 2 CD15 staffers, an Assemblyman, a Police Officer, a Fireman, realtors, local business operators, and one who simply wants San Pedro to secede from the City of Los Angeles.

The race for the CD15 seat opened hard with Assemblyman Furutani and Union President Pat McOsker grabbing the reins only to be challenged by ex-Councilman Rudy Svorinich and surprised by LAPD Officer Joe Buscaino.

While those four candidates built huge war-chests and jostled for the attention of voters, several of the other candidates slowly found their rhythm and suddenly the race started to get very interesting. No longer was this simply a battle between moneyed insiders with connections, it was now a free-for-all in a crowded field.

The Watts Neighborhood Council CD15 Forum offered voters a chance to see the candidates in action and the candidates put on a show that was light on surprises but heavy in options, confirming to all that this race could go in any direction.

Jayme Wilson took on the big question “What about Watts?” and gave an answer that could be applied to any neighborhood, “I’m not going to tell this community or any other community what their priorities are, I’m going to listen and work with the neighborhood councils and community groups to understand the priorities. My job as City Councilman will be to find the money to do the things you want.”

Justin Brimmer attacked “the rule of 15” that divides city resources into even piles regardless of need and gave a compelling argument for his promise to implement a triage system that addresses need when delivering city services to local communities.

Wilson and Brimmer are strong performers in the race as evidenced by the informal polling of Experience San Pedro which give the race to Wilson while last week’s Harbor Area Neighborhood Council Forum straw poll gave the race to Brimmer.

Gordon Teuber found his footing when asked about the housing projects in Watts, taking time to attack Housing Department salaries, allay the fears of current residents who worry about displacement, and proceeding to lay a plan down for helping local residents buy and restore foreclosed properties.

John Delgado travels with his charming family and takes an “everyman” approach to the race, calling on the public to “Lean on me!” and to hold him accountable as he promises to work collaboratively to develop “One District, One Community, One Vision” for CD15.

Candice Graham brings passion to the race and she showed up early and stayed late, talking to any within earshot of her ideas on everything from jobs to crime to gangs to the economy.

Ex-Councilman Robert Farrell leads the field of 4 write-in candidates and his comments at the forum ranged from the circumstances that kept him in qualifying for the ballot to his support for two of the ballot qualifying candidates.

James T. Law qualified as a write-in candidate just days before the forum and his presence at the Watts Forum was a refreshing balance of idealistic passion and humble servitude.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters [link] was in the audience and several candidates took the time to give her a nod, demonstrating the complex nature of the many relationships that must work together in order to prevail in the CD15 race.

On November 8, voters will take to the polls to choose between a half-dozen front runners who are closely tailed by several candidates in position to capitalize on the common ground competition. If no candidate claims a majority of votes on the 8th, the top two candidates will then move to the Special CD 15 Runoff Election on Tuesday, January 17, 2012.

The Watts Neighborhood Council CD15 Forum was co-hosted by the Watts Willowbrook Boys and Girls Club and covered everything from jobs, housing, transportation, public safety, gang activity, pension reform, the delivery of city services, and economic development. Videos of the event are available on YouTube.

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

CityWatchLA - The Timidity of Neighborhood Council Bureaucracy

CityWatch, June 3, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 44

RETHINKING LA - On May 25, 1961 President John F. Kennedy stood before a special joint session of Congress and challenged America to join him in his dramatic and ambitious vision, to send an American safely to the Moon and back, before the end of the decade.

That moment of clear vision and a specific deadline brought out the best in America.

Fifty years later, Neighborhood Council Valley Village celebrated the audacious power of a strong vision coupled with an absolute deadline by rejecting the Sierra Club’s request for a resolution calling on the City of Los Angeles to get off coal by the year 2020.

Treasurer Paul Hatfield, in his City Watch article, explained that a resolution of support “on an issue so complex, with cost ramifications that could strain an already financially challenged municipality, was disrespectful of the deliberative process NCs should follow.“

That moment of caution and the commitment to deliberation is what has brought out the worst in Los Angeles.

Neighborhood Councils were created with a very simple purpose, “to promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

They exist to engage the public in raising the bar, in challenging City Hall to get it done and to define “it” so that the professionals get a clear message of what the community expects.

It is not the responsibility of neighborhood councils to balance the books, to gas the trucks, to audit payroll, to clean the streets, or to buy equipment for city departments.

It’s to set a vision for greatness, including Public Safety, Public Works, Public Health, Public Education, and Public Service, on the Mayor and the City Council and to hold them accountable as they spend $6.9 billion of Public Money getting it done.

Albert Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." I believe that it’s the imagination of the public that should lay the foundation for the future of Los Angeles, even if we don’t possess the road-map or solutions in advance of the commitment to act.

Einstein also said that problems are created with one level of thinking while the solutions to those problems require a different level of thinking.

Of course, he never sat on a neighborhood council board and considered resolutions calling on the Mayor and City Council to support the members of the community as they pursued happiness.

Imagine if Steve Jobs had stood before a Community Council and offered up his vision of “A computer in every home!”

“Has this vision been vetted by committee? Has the applicant ever done this before? What are the economic ramifications of this vision and will it benefit the community? What are the qualifications of the visionary?”

Jobs didn’t ask for permission and he didn’t qualify the vision, in fact he revised it and refined it and raised the stakes when times got tough, bringing out the best in himself and in his team.

He worked with people who embraced the vision, reality be damned, and he held the vision aloft while one partner built the prototype and a third developed the business plan.

The Jobs vision was always in the forefront of the company and the people who joined the company understood and lived the vision. Not the spreadsheet, not the forecasts, not the schematics and not the inventory controls.

Since then, not only has Jobs seen his vision of a computer in every home come true, it’s safe to say that he played a significant role in the revolution that has put a computer in every pocket, on every desk, in every phone, and they’re all being used in ways that Jobs never imagined.

Such is the power of a bold vision.

Of course, Einstein is surely a genius and Jobs is probably up there, but what about the common folk. What can the hoi polloi hope to accomplish, simply by setting a goal and then embarking on a journey without funds and skills and backing and a track record of success?

25 years ago, the Rotary Club demonstrated the power of a simple vision when they took on Polio, historically the world’s greatest cause of disability. In spite of the fact that there is no known cure, they stepped up and declared their vision as “The complete eradication of Polio.”

As of this past year, polio cases have been reduced by 99% and Rotary has been joined by Bill and Melinda Gates in the struggle to focus all of the innovation and creativity they can muster on the last 1%, the hardest 1%.

As the Gates family makes the worldwide eradication of Polio the priority of the Gates Foundation, it’s important to remember that Microsoft was just four years old when the Rotary Club looked at the world, imagined a better place, and committed to a bold vision.

Neighborhood councils are well within their place to stand up and issue declarations calling on City Hall to act professionally and to deliver on its obligations.

After all, without feedback, the Mayor and City Council can hardly be responsive to local needs.

Daniel H. Burnham, architect and urban planner, is quoted as saying “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably will themselves not be realized.”

Los Angeles is fast becoming a DIY city, one where the people of LA are more and more responsible for charting the course.

I challenge the neighborhood councils of Los Angeles to make big plans, to speak loudly and clearly, and to fulfill their destiny by embracing a vision for clean energy, a green economy, new technologies, and healthy communities.

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

CityWatchLA - Route 66: Still Kickin' In East Hollywood

CityWatch, May 20, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 40

The East Hollywood Neighborhood Council (EHNC) has embarked on a journey to revitalize Santa Monica Boulevard,
the final stretch of America’s Main Street, embracing the Route 66 legacy as an opportunity to fulfill its City Charter mandate to “promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

David Bell, President of EHNC, kicked off the project by proclaiming “The EHNC is excited to support quality of life improvements in this under served community. By partnering with the business community, state and local governments, charitable organizations, and concerned stakeholders, we are able to leverage our efforts to create maximum impact.”

The East Hollywood Route 66 Task Force is committed to encouraging the local community to participate in the civic engagement process, first by identifying and working with the many civic partners, and then by embarking on community projects that address public safety, public works, public health, public education, and public service opportunities.

From the National Parks Service and its “Historic Route 66 Corridor Program” to LA’s Office of Historic Resources the Route 66 Task Force leverages the rich legacy of the past with the opportunity of the future.

The campaign kicked off with three components, the Economic Alliance, the Livability Initiative, and Civic Engagement.

The Route 66 Economic Alliance connects the local businesses and merchants from Sunset Junction to the 101 and has already raised the funds necessary to hire Chrysalis to conduct street cleaning, maintenance and graffiti removal. In addition, the Metro has partnered with the EA by steam cleaning all 22 blocks of the corridor, all as the result of leveraging a small investment by the neighborhood council into a sustainable effort.

The Route 66 Livability Initiative has embraced the Complete Streets standard and is engaging the community in the process of pursuing federal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) funding, California State Parks funding for a Route 66 park, a Caltrans Environmental Justice grant, and Historic Preservation funding.

The Civic Engagement component brings it all together with Town Halls and Forums that introduce the residents and business operators to their Federal, State, County and City of LA partners, from Caltrans and Metro to City Council and departments that include Street Services, Transportation, City Planning, and the LAPD.

Route 66 is neither the oldest of the longest stretch of highway in America but it certainly is the most famous. Tourists continue to travel to Chicago where they rent a car and drive across the country, re-invoking the romance of America’s Route 66 and reconnecting with the promise of the land of opportunity.

Built in the 20’s during a time of unparalleled social, economic, political disruption and global conflict, Route 66 opened up the west coast and gave people an opportunity to pursue their dreams in a land that is still famous for its great weather, economic opportunity, the entertainment industry, the tourist attractions, the arts & culture community and the creative energy.

In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the Route 66 Study Act which formally acknowledged that Route 66 “has become a symbol of the American people’s heritage of travel and their legacy of seeking a better life.”

To the people of East Hollywood, that better life consists of a densely populated and heavily traveled transit corridor that moves lots of traffic at the expense of those who struggle to cross the street and the local merchants who watch the world race by, always on the way to someplace else.

Once memorialized by poets, serenaded by musicians, and celebrated on television and in films, Route 66 was decommissioned in 1985, forgotten by most and in danger of losing its unique place in history.

For East Hollywood, it was a simple complaint from a stakeholder about overflowing trashcans that prompted the formation of the Route 66 Task Force, resulting in a campaign that has resonated through the community.

As Route 66 Task Force Chair Armen Makasjian prepared for the latest Route 66 Town Hall he proclaimed “As a second generation business owner on this street, I am thrilled at the attention being directed at this vital stretch of American history.”

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

CityWatchLA - Improving Public Safety or Picking the Public’s Pocket?

CityWatch, Apr 26, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 33

LA’S ACE PROGRAM
Stephen Box

Promises of efficiency and revenue herald the arrival of LA’s Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) Program, a streamlined process that is positioned as a public health and safety tool for the departments who provide code enforcement services to the people of Los Angeles.

The ACE program is an alternative enforcement method that allows the Police, Fire, Building & Safety, Housing, Transportation, Public Works, and Animal Services to issue administrative citations within their normal scope of work rather than the traditional citations that tend to get lost in the priorities of the City Attorney’s office and the logjam of our court system.

Current code violations tend to take up to a year to process, wearying both those who initiate the complaints and those who fight to defend themselves against the complaints. The only winners are those who abuse the system and benefit from the random effectiveness.

Debate over the ACE program tends to position the same features as both benefits and liabilities.

For example, the fact that the program is a source of revenue is a benefit to a city in the midst of a budget crisis but it hardly bodes well for the defendants that their guilt and penalty is linked to the solvency of the city. Against the backdrop of the LAPD’s recent “ticket quota” court case, the notion that the program’s success could prompt overzealous hearing officers to generate revenue has been positioned as a liability by civil rights advocates.

The fact that the ACE program has a lower burden of proof is a benefit in terms of efficiency, allowing Pro-Tem judges (attorneys who volunteer for the courts) to process the low-priority cases that tend to get lost in the current scenario. Of course, the ease with which defendants may find themselves on the penalty end of a judgment issued by hearing officers eager to please their potential future employers is a liability.

The fact that the program is complaint-driven is a benefit to those in the community willing and able to participate by initiating complaints for barking dogs, gasoline leaf-blowers, over-height fences, front lawn parking and a host of other violations. At the same time, it allows for an uneven application of citywide municipal code, creating a liability that can fracture a local community by pitting neighbor against neighbor instead of simply applying standards that are enforce uniformly and evenly.

While the concept of a City Attorney’s office that can focus on serious crimes while the ACE program dispenses with the lower priority violations is attractive and potentially revenue generating, the devil is in the details.

Missing from the proposal is an interdepartmental process establishing responsibility for tracking and collecting administrative fines for all non-contested citations.

If the revenue goes to the General Fund, departmental motivation is lost. If the revenue goes to the respective Departments, it creates a motivation to generate citations.

Through it all, it relies on efficiencies within the City Attorney’s office but does nothing to address the disconnect between the many Departments with the authority to cite for municipal code violations.

The Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates have called for the implementation of the City Attorney’s Administrative Code Enforcement (ACE), referring to it as a “Revenue Generator.”

The ongoing debate will need to determine if the ACE program is an effort to improve public safety and health more efficiently or to generate revenue more efficiently.

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

CityWatchLA - Community Gardeners Receive Stay of Execution

CityWatch, Jan 7, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 2

Demonstrating that “cost recovery” should actually involve “a cost,” LA’s Recreation and Parks (RAP) Commission suspended the Community Garden plot fee rental increases after listening to a staff report that acknowledged that, in some cases, the City of LA didn’t even own or operate the gardens being subjected to the fees.

At issue is a Recreation and Parks “cost recovery” plot rental fee that was approved in July of 2010 by the RAP Commission as part of a 70+ page document that flew past the radar of LA’s gardeners until November when RAP staff announced the fee increase at a gardener’s meeting.

The compost hit the fan!

LA’s loose network of community gardens includes the Wattles Farm, operating in sync with RAP since 1975, the Ocean View Farms that was issued a permit in 1977, and the Orcutt Ranch which has been around for 25 years.

Some gardens, such as the Sepulveda Garden Center with over 800 plots, are quite large while others, such as the Rose Hills/Debs Gardens with 21 plots, are more intimate. Some gardens, such as the Expo Center/CSU Urban Garden, are operated as educational facilities while others, such as Little Green Acres Park, are closed to the public and actually operated by RAP staff and grow food as a service for the community.

While RAP’s proposed fees came under the guise of “cost recovery” the RAP staff report revealed that the proposed charges were being applied to gardens that have no costs to the City of Los Angeles. The gardeners at Ocean View Farms operate 500 plots on DWP land and already pay their own water, requiring no services from RAP.

Of the other gardens, one of them is located on Caltrans property and another is located on land belonging to the Army Corps of Engineers.

Through it all, it became clear that the City of LA’s relationship with the community gardeners was quite complicated and varied dramatically from garden to garden, begging the question, “What are the actual costs?”

Crickets chirped.

Most interesting was the survey of the services actually provided by the City of LA to the gardens. In some cases, RAP staff are reported as providing “edging, pruning, and blowing” services, a claim that was challenged as being at odds with the ethos of a community gardening.

At the end of the report, it became apparent that the RAP proposed/Commission approved/Gardener protested fees were inappropriate when examined on a case by case basis and even simply charging for water became complicated with plot sizes that vary from small as 32 square feet at North Weddington to a maximum of 1500 square feet at Little Green Acres.

RAP staff recommended a suspension of the previously adopted fee increases while the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition (LANCC) and the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council (EHNC) both called for the fee increase to be rescinded.

Commission President Barry Sanders wrapped the RAP review of community gardens under RAP “jurisdiction” by suggesting that this opportunity “may be ripe” to create an environment where gardeners can manage themselves. “Maybe the gardeners should rule the roost. That’s something that will require the gardeners to do the work, in terms of organizing themselves and paying the department for cost recovery.”

While the immediate discussion of community gardens may seem to only impact the 1500 gardeners who operate plots in LA, the larger issue is one of simple municipal operations and LA’s bureaucratic confusion over core services, cost recovery, and administrative authority.

It is imperative that this simple “cost recovery” issue be examined in the big picture and that the City of LA stop looking to balance the budget on the backs of the individuals it serves but instead focus on core services, operating efficiencies and an honest accounting of assets and liabilities.

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

CityWatchLA - The Politics of Speed

Emely Aleman, 12, and Angela Rodriguez, 10, were struck by a motorist as they attempted to cross Laurel Canyon Boulevard, a tragedy that resulted in the death of Emely and critical injuries to Angela.

The community immediately responded with outrage, calling the intersection of Laurel Canyon and Archwood a dangerous location with a long legacy of traffic collisions that include three other incidents this year where pedestrians attempting to cross the street were hit by motorists.

Community members immediately circulated a petition and demanded that the City of Los Angeles install a traffic signal. Councilman Paul Krekorian promptly responded and indicated that he will be working with LAUSD Boardmember Tamar Galatzan to expedite the installation process.

The rush to solve the problem of dangerous traffic on Laurel Canyon has resulted in a solution that fails to scratch the surface and, in fact, fails to correctly identify the underlying problems.

The local community is to be commended for taking responsibility for public safety but it is incumbent on the City of Los Angeles to support the community with the full spectrum of professional traffic safety and transportation engineering solutions, complemented by a vigorous funding campaign.

The speed limit on Laurel Canyon is completely unenforceable by the LAPD who use radar and laser for speed limit enforcement but are restricted from streets that have expired speed limit surveys. Laurel Canyon, from Ventura Boulevard to Hubbard Street, is 10 miles of open speedway, and motorists have been uncitable since October 21, 2009.

Traffic calming techniques such as a road diets, bulbouts, raised median strips, safety refuge islands, speed tables, and other traffic calming techniques would both increase capacity and throughput while managing speed and enhancing safety for all modes.

Yet, these strategies were never introduced into the conversation nor was the local community engaged in the process of embracing solutions that would impact the entire boulevard.

The Highway Safety Improvement Project (HSIP) funding program has $72 million available to communities such as NoHo, specifically to fund projects that will improve safety on the streets of local neighborhoods. The City of LA has proposed a list of 33 projects for the current funding cycle, the bulk of which are signal phasing projects and traffic signal installations.

The HSIP funding program is competitive and Los Angeles is up against other communities within the LA and Ventura County areas. LA's signal phasing and traffic lights will be competing against innovations such as in-pavement crosswalk illumination, road diets, traffic calming, speed feedback signs, traffic circles, mini-roundabouts, and pedestrian prioritized signal phasing. LA will probably fall back on its "fair share" claim to funding when the competition gets tough.

HSIP proposals must be made by municipal authorities such as the City of Los Angeles and the competition is tough. Many of the surrounding communities have proposed projects that come with robust community support. Neighborhood Councils, Homeowners Associations and Community Organizations could be proposing their own safety projects and partnering with the Bureau of Streets Services or their Council Office.

HSIP proposals don't need to be complicated or full of engineering complexities, but can be as simple as an overview of the current environment (sketchs or photographs), collision data which is available from the LAPD, a brief description of the concept or proposal and a pricetag of up to $900,000. The deadline for HSIP proposals is December 9, 2010.

The "rush to judgment" and the knee-jerk proposal to install a traffic signal on Laurel Canyon Boulevard is unfortunate for many reasons including the simple fact that signals can inadvertently cause greater speed differentials, with motorists speeding up to catch greens and then stopping rapidly when they miss them. This diminishes safety.

Moderate and consistent speeds are optimum for capacity, throughput, and safety for all road users. Traffic signals create a false sense of control and demonstrate an adherence to an antiquated paradigm of traffic control that has demonstratedly failed the people of Los Angeles.

Now is the time for LA to connect with robust transportation funding sources, with innovative traffic safety solutions, and with each other by working together to develop streets that are safe for everybody, regardless of the mode of travel.

For more information on the HSIP program and how your community can participate in developing and funding projects that will make the streets of Los Angeles safer, contact Dale Benson.

CityWatchLA - Wilbur Ave Bike Lane Brouhaha an LADOT Conspiracy?

CityWatch, Oct 12, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 81

"I used to believe in conspiracies, until I discovered incompetence." -Former L.A. councilwoman Ruth Galanter

A simple Bureau of Street Services (BOSS) resurfacing project on the Valley's Wilbur Avenue and a Department of Transportation (LADOT) "road diet" have kicked the proverbial hornet's nest, resulting in a clash of cultures that continues to escalate, drawing both CD12's Councilman Smith and LADOT's departing GM Rita Robinson into the fracas. Nine months ago, the BOSS notified local agencies and utilities that Wilbur Avenue, between Devonshire and Chatsworth, was scheduled for a facelift. After allowing six months to pass, ensuring that there are no construction conflicts, the BOSS went to work performing a street improvement that typically brings cheers from the community.

The Department of Transportation, which has three sections engaged in the business of designing street plans, (only two of them subscribe to the BOSS notifications!) jumped on the street resurfacing opportunity and implemented a "road diet." Wilbur went from two lanes in both directions to one lane in each direction, a left turn lane, and bike lanes on both sides.

All this took place quietly. No outreach, no coordination between the LADOT and the neighborhood councils or the CD12 council office or the cycling community or the local PTA or the local NASCAR chapter. No coordination took place between the LADOT's Operations, Geometrics, and Bikeways divisions. Nobody notified the City of LA's Bicycle Advisory Committee. Nada!

The LADOT argues that they simply took advantage of an opportunity to engage in a "road diet" and to add bike lanes and that they should be congratulated, not criticized. "After all," says LADOT's Assistant GM John Fisher, "the 1996 Bike Plan calls for bike lanes on Wilbur Avenue and we had a very small amount of time to design and implement a new striping plan. We had no time for outreach."

Conspiracy theorists tend look at situations such as this and wonder if the LADOT simply dropped bike lanes onto Wilbur as part of an engineered conflict strategy, killing any hope of a bikeway network, resulting in an "I told you they don't fit!" declaration and allowing a return to "business as usual."

Realists, like Galanter, will look at this situation and simply chalk it up to incompetence.

1) LADOT Incompetence: Wilbur Avenue has been designated for Bike Lanes since '96 and yet the LADOT Bikeways division never developed a striping plan. 14 years is a long time and yet the LADOT claims they had no time for outreach because the resurfacing work was a surprise to them.

DOT Operations subscribes to the BOSS resurfacing notification yet DOT Bikeways doesn't. The simplest and cheapest way to introduce bikeways facilities to the streets of LA is to work cooperatively with other departments.

2) Outreach Incompetence: The LADOT has a Bikeways Project Coordinator who somehow has the time to travel, from Sacramento and Chattanooga, giving presentations on facilities that don't exist in the City of Los Angeles.

It would seem that the highest priority would be on coordinating the divisions within the LADOT, the LADOT with other city departments, and the City of LA with the people who actually walk, ride bikes, take mass transit and drive the streets.

Most importantly, it would seem that coordinating transportation issues with the people of Los Angeles would be a priority but, based on results, such was not the case.

For all of the billion dollar transportation solutions on the horizon, the simplest opportunity for the people of LA to improve access and mobility is to focus on "human infrastructure," information and education that results in small behavioral shifts, all adding up to safer streets, greater communication and cooperation, and enhanced effectiveness for all modes.

The Wilbur Avenue incident is the epitome of arrogance, imposing a solution on the community without input and then framing the situation as a win-lose proposal.

It created a situation that consumed incredible amounts of energy and time, not from the folks who are on the clock, but from the community, all because the LADOT is evidently incapable or unwilling to simply engage the community in the solution.

"Road diets" are not new and the notion that moderate speeds increase capacity and through-put is counter-intuitive but true.

The fact that property values go up as speeds go down and the fact that local residents can cross the street safely and enjoy active transportation when cut-through traffic is eliminated are all missing from the conversation because the conversation never took place.

The LADOT must embrace a "Common Ground" approach to traffic engineering or the Wilbur Incident repeat itself in other neighborhoods.

3) Council Office Incompetence: Councilman Smith has come forward to argue that the bike lanes don't make sense. In fact, he went so far as to introduce a motion that would require all bikeways improvements to go to the local neighborhood council for approval. This from a guy who has worked the hardest in city council to keep neighborhood councils from gathering steam.

He has championed speed limit increases in his district over neighborhood council objections. But now, they become his ally (or tool) in fighting the LADOT who acted against his wishes.

Smith objects to the bike lanes on Wilbur Avenue, claiming cyclists are only 2% of the population and that they shouldn't get more than their share.

He forgets that when discussing Measure R, he fought to have the funding for bikeways improvements reduced below 0.75%, again arguing that cyclists should only get their fair share.

He apparently subscribes to the win-lose theory of transportation planning (wait until he finds out about the Complete Streets Act!) and is simply confused on what constitutes "fair share."

The upside to Smith's involvement in the brouhaha is his motion that now directs all transportation projects in the community to the neighborhood council, a position that empowers the community and introduces accountability and oversight to the mysteries of transportation.

4) LA Times incompetence: Sandy Banks wrote a column bemoaning the Wilbur Avenue "improvements" and demonstrates the casualness that is all too common at the LA Times. While the general public may not care too much about the difference between bike routes, bike lanes, and bike paths, one would think that journalists would at least attempt to differentiate between a $2K bike route and a $1.5MM bike path. (Wilbur gets neither but that doesn't stop the LA Times from getting them mixed up)

The LA Times refers to 400 miles of existing bikeways facilities, projects the addition 40 more per year for the next 20 years, and predicts a resulting 1600 miles of Bike lanes and paths. Whew! Too much cut-and-paste on the Mayor's press release! The reality is this, there are currently 58 miles of paths and 157 miles of lanes.

The proposed Bike Plan will result in 157 miles of paths and 213 miles of lanes. The Mayor's promise of 1600 miles includes 511 miles of studies, 101 miles of routes, and 651 miles of friendly streets. Step away from the Kool-Aid!

Banks (and the Times) can be forgiven the sloppy grasp of transportation designations and mathematical failures but the LA Times column inadvertently justifies "road diets" with when it protests the impact of the bike lanes on Wilbur.

Banks writes "For years, Wilbur Avenue had been a free-flowing community secret, a commuter street that bypassed the congestion of Northridge's main routes. Then a "street improvement" project last month turned our speedway into a parking lot."

The Wilbur "road diet" isn't a tool for benefiting cyclists, it's a strategy for getting Banks and other motorists to slow down, to stop using the smooth-flowing street as a cut-through alternative to the arterials that are congested. It is a tool for returning streets to the community, to the people who live in the neighborhood.

Through it all it is evident that the real clash of cultures is not between cyclists and motorists, nor is it between locals and cut-through traffic. It is between City Departments that operate with complete arrogance combined with contempt for the public and Neighborhood Councils, empowered by the City Charter to advise the Mayor and the City Council on the budget and the delivery of services.

The Wilbur Avenue fracas is dismissed by many as a tempest in a local neighborhood teapot but the impact will resonate throughout the city. This could be good for neighborhood councils, it could be good for local residents and merchants who are most directly impacted by cut-through traffic, and it could be good for people of all modes if we can work together and establish common ground.

For that to happen, it's important that puff pieces such as LA's proposed Bike Plan are analyzed for accuracy and held to a performance standard.

It's imperative that the Bike Plan be incorporated into the community plans and that it is integrated into LA's strategic transportation plan. Most importantly,

LA's proposed Bike Plan must satisfy the Complete Streets Act which goes in to effect on Jan 1, 2011.

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

CityWatchLA - LA Transpo’s Inaction Sparks Greig Smith Overreaction

Photo by Joe Linton, LA Streetsblog

CityWatch, Sept 14, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 73

Councilman Smith's recent motion directing neighborhood councils to provide recommendations on bicycle infrastructure before its implementation is either a strategic coup de grace or a triple-scoop of unintended consequences.

The incident that provoked the ire of Smith was innocent enough, a simple Bureau of Street Services street resurfacing project and an equally simple LADOT "road diet" restriping project. Under normal conditions this activity would fall under the category of "improvements" and would be conducted with the approval and gratitude of the local residents.

But such was not the case.

Northridge West residents came home to find Wilbur Avenue resurfaced and with preliminary striping that indicated a loss of travel lanes. This prompted fears of traffic congestion, cut-through traffic, loss of crosswalks and other negative impacts. The LADOT's failure to communicate with the community left a vacuum that saw neighbors protesting on the blogs, to the council, to the press.

The LADOT's failure to act prompted Smith to overreact. (see Smith motion here in pdf)

It's commendable that Smith believes in the neighborhood councils enough to require NC recommendations for any bikeways improvements. But the motion falls short for four reasons:

1) If it was the LADOT's failure to engage the local community in roadway improvements that prompted the motion, then write it so that neighborhood councils must offer recommendations on all "improvements" including speed limit increases, loss of crosswalks, street widenings, street closures, and traffic signalization. Don't limit the NC authority to bikeways facilities, empower neighborhood councils to partner with the LADOT on all issues related to the development of Safe Streets!

2) If it was the LADOT's failure to communicate that caught Smith's attention, then demonstrate a real commitment to communication by embracing one of the two recent NC/LADOT Memorandums of Understanding that have been rejected by LADOT General Managers.

Other departments are somehow able to partner with the neighborhood councils on the delivery of city services but the LADOT has proven to be the most elusive.

3) If it was the LADOT's failure to synchronize with other departments that caused a 30 day window of hasty and ill-advised activity, perhaps the real issue is departmental redundancy and inefficiency.

The BOSS communicates resurfacing plans well in advance with other departments but there are three sections within the LADOT that have to work together to put down a simple bike lane, Operations, Geometrics, and Bikeways.

The fact that they are unable to pull it off is a cry for simplification, not an indictment of road stripes.

4) If it was the LADOT's failure to perform its duties in such a way that the local neighborhood council could simply perform its City Charter mandate to "advise on the delivery of city services" then address the behavior of the LADOT.

BUT the current motion is a small but significant step toward invoking the Federal Voting Rights Act, something the city Attorney has pointed out through the Charter revision process and even after it was approved in 1999.

Positioning the neighborhood councils as a final decision-making authority, something normally reserved for the City Council, could trigger the (un)intended consequences of NC financial disclosures, boundaries based on population, and redefined stakeholder definitions.

The opportunity to impose the illusion of LADOT transparency while redefining the NC system and limiting the implementation of the 1996 Bike Plan may appeal to some, but it is hardly an effective or meaningful action.

In fact, it is a poorly positioned over-reaction to the LADOT's failure to participate as partners with the public in the improvement of the streets of Los Angeles.

Several years ago, USC's School of Policy, Planning, and Development conducted an analysis of LA's neighborhood council system and the resulting relationships with the city departments. LADOT ranked third from the bottom on responsiveness.

Since then, not much has improved. LADOT staff currently travels to Chattanooga, Chicago, and Sacramento to address non-constituents on the wonders of LA's streets, but somehow the trip to Northridge is simply too far.

If the resolution of the Wilbur Avenue restriping brouhaha is to result in meaningful improvements to the delivery of city services, let it start with a City Council directed initiative that requires the LADOT to tear down the silos that prevent them from partnering with Public Works, City Planning, the LAPD and all of the many departments with influence over the streets of LA, including the neighborhood councils.

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

CityWatchLA - Is LA Developing Tunnel Vision...Again?

CityWatch, Aug 24, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 67

LA's most recent commitment to connectivity demonstrates a complete disconnect from our history, from the wishes of the community, and from reality.

90 years ago the City of Los Angeles implemented a School Pedestrian Tunnel Program in an effort to address the brutal fact that fully 2/3 of all traffic collision deaths were pedestrians.

LA's noble but misguided experiment with segregated underground facilities for pedestrians was limited by the sheer complexity of the initiative and was soon replaced by more effective strategies such as implementation of traffic control devices, crosswalks, all-stop phases, pedestrian right-of-way standards and traffic enforcement.

LA's tunnels have theoretically been maintained by the City’s Department of Public Works which relies on a meager "Bridge and Tunnel Maintenance Account" funding that apparently fails to cover any security improvements, let alone even simple maintenance costs.

Community concerns over the deteriorating condition of the tunnels date back 40 years when the Los Angeles Board of Education referred to some of the tunnels as "unsafe, filthy places that harbored criminal activity." The LA went so far as to adopt a policy for pedestrian tunnel closure that required the participation of the City Transportation, the LAPD, the Board of Education, and local community members.

Over the years community groups have rallied to address the blighted tunnels in their neighborhoods, pointing out the inherent design flaws that create inhospitable environments for vulnerable pedestrians.

25 years ago Atwater Village residents spent a year collecting petitions in an effort to close local tunnels that the LA Times referred to as "smelly, dangerous lairs for gangs, graffiti artists and drunken slumberers." Councilman Wachs, LAPD Capt. Cunningham, and Fletcher Drive Elementary School Principal Christensen called for the closures. Evidence such as trash-littered tunnel entrances, human excrement smeared floors, graffiti marked walls, and empty beer bottles confirmed the wisdom of their actions.

More recently, communities such as Woodland Hills and Valley Village have fought to close pedestrian tunnels under their freeways, citing the same concerns of public safety and ineffective connectivity.

Two tunnels in Woodland Hills run under the Ventura Freeway and they came under scrutiny when LAPD's Sgt. Kearney was attacked in the Sale Avenue tunnel by two men who hit him over the head with a beer bottle and then charged at him with a long kitchen knife.

Two tunnels in Valley Village run under the Hollywood Freeway and they also came under scrutiny when their seclusion resulted in criminal activity and long-term encampments that prevented local residents from enjoying the adjacent parks.

Through it all, it's typically local residents who partner with the LAPD and local schools in an effort to make the streets safer for the pedestrians and the neighborhood safer for everybody. Tunnels have been closed all over the city, some filled with cement, some simply barricaded, and others fenced off and locked with a padlock.

These tunnels have all been closed ... until now!

Current proposals for connectivity include re-opening two tunnels that connect to schools and re-opening two tunnels that connect to parks. In one case, funding requests have been made in an effort to reopen the tunnels and enhance them with better lighting. In the other case, reopening previously closed tunnels has been positioned as an "option" in a City Planning document.

Training children to fear the streets instead of supporting them with traffic calming measures is a complete abdication of responsibility.

Training children to use underground tunnels contradicts simple crime prevention standards that include awareness of surroundings, staying visible, and keeping an escape route.

Simple self-preservation strategies are at odds with "Walk into the tunnel!" Most importantly, the ever present trash and debris is a signal that the area is unsupervised. It's a signal to turn away and seek another route.

Current efforts to enhance connectivity are noble, especially because they address the needs of pedestrians and cyclists on their way to school. But it's imperative that Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Standards (CPTED) serve as a foundation for all proposals and that the safety of people of all modes are supported on the streets of Los Angeles.

Most importantly, any efforts to address connectivity must start by connecting the LAPD, Councilmembers, Neighborhood Councils, the local schools, the LADOT, City Planning, Public Works, Caltrans, local residents and anybody else who has a vested interest in mobility and public safety on the streets of Los Angeles.

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

East Hollywood Connects Community via Route 66

CityWatch, Aug 20, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 66

The Route 66 legacy of connectivity continues to resonate in East Hollywood, bringing the community together in a street revitalization campaign initiated by the neighborhood council and involving the Metro, City Hall, local businesses, residents and transit passengers.

LA's Santa Monica Boulevard section of Route 66 had long ago fallen victim to multi-jurisdictional oversight that resulted in CHP, the Sheriff's Department and the LAPD sharing law enforcement authority. Caltrans and the City of LA share responsibility for maintenance while the Metro and the City of LA share authority over the transit activity, street furniture, and bus stops. Local advocates, from property owners to pedestrians, have long complained of conflict and congestion, yet the process for pursuing solutions typically frustrated even the hardiest of community members.

All that changed when the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council turned a crisis on the streets into an opportunity for the rebirth of Route 66.

The Metro's Duane Martin and Councilman Eric Garcetti's Transportation Deputy Marcel Porras joined forces and committed to supporting the neighborhood council's newly formed Transit Task Force and their mandate of supporting transit as a tool for improving the quality of life for everybody.

Bart Reed of the Transit Coalition joined forces and offered insight in navigating the bureaucratic maze, one that involves the State, the County, the City, and then departments ranging from Transportation to Public Works to Planning to the LAPD to Cultural Affairs.

Throw in the LAUSD and it became apparent, one really does need a guide if they intend to cross the street.

EHNC President David Bell moved from a problem solving paradigm and embraced an aspirational approach, implementing a connectivity strategy that embraces the rich history of Route 66.

The EHNC Transit Task Force includes Historic Preservation experts, Homeless and Social Service advocates, Arts and Culture representatives, along with members of the neighborhood council's Beautification, Public Safety and Transportation committees.

This unique approach to problem solving starts with a commitment to creating an environment that is inspirational and aspirational, focusing on a goal that has a residual impact of addressing the specific problems that initially prompted a local business owner to cross the street, attending a neighborhood council meeting and asking for help.

This is just the beginning but every great journey starts with a single step and the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council's Transit Task Force is that step, this time setting in motion another Route 66 adventure that has the capacity to transform a community.

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

CityWatchLA - NC Elections: Opportunity that Got Away!

CityWatch, June 11, 2010
Vo 8 Issue 46

One of the most significant events in the life of a neighborhood council (along with all of the others) is the election of the Board of Directors, an occasion that is much more than the simple selection of the chosen few. The election is also the most significant outreach event in the NC cycle, offering an opportunity to not only engage qualified candidates but to engage the community in the work of the council. The election also offers the community the opportunity to participate in establishing a vision for the council, during the campaign journey and at the election itself.

One might even suggest that the simple act of voting for a candidate in a hotly contested election is the simple act that signifies a contract between the people of the community and the neighborhood council. Regardless of how one approaches NC elections, one thing is sure, they signify the beginning, not the end, of a long and significant journey, and yet...

Neighborhood Council elections have become a spectator sport, one that takes place in an abstract fashion with little ownership from the many groups who purportedly have a vested interest in the outcome.

Consider the role of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment in the election process and their laissez faire attitude to the process. Granted, they are no longer responsible for conducting the actual elections but one would think that they would have a vested interest in promoting the NC mandate, the NC system, the NC engagement. If nothing else, one would think that DONE would have used the NC election process to promote themselves, demonstrating their ability to communicate, to connect, to engage the community and to support the NC system. Such is not the case. DONE is, at best, a passive spectator to the NC election process, at worst, they are completely oblivious.

Consider the neighborhood councils, caught in the middle of a long drawn out battle over roll-over funds and funding debates and also caught in the middle of a long drawn out battle over election authority and responsibility. Some councils had a strong track record of outreach and they faired well. Some councils had a history of relying on DONE and they were left hanging. Some councils failed to grasp the importance of the election process and simply allowed it to be something that was done to them, not for them and certainly not with them. The final results remain to be seen but as the election process limps forward, it seems to be leaving many councils floundering in its wake.

Consider the role of the City Clerk, currently responsible for conducting NC elections but not responsible for any outreach or communication other than that specific to the machinations of the actual election process. As the City Clerk nears completion of the citywide neighborhood council board election process, they have received cheers from some and jeers from others, along with a great deal of ambivalence, resulting in City Council assurances that the entire process will be reviewed for efficacy and efficiency. Along the way, the City Clerk claimed absolute authority over elements ranging from bylaw revisions to election procedures to the grievance process. With this authority comes only limited responsibility and it ends at the moment of certification.

The failure of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, the Neighborhood Councils and the City Clerk to come together with a citywide plan for capitalizing on the election process as the single greatest opportunity to connect with the community and to promote the neighborhood council system is a huge missed opportunity.

This failure to come together has also left a gap in accountability that leaves some neighborhood councils in limbo, attempting to play by rules but unable to locate any authority.

At issue is the process for transitioning neighborhood council authority from the sitting board to the newly elected board. For many, the composition is similar so the transition is of minimal impact and significance. In other cases, the old board is being replaced by a new board. That has proven to be a problem for some councils.

First, what agency or department has authority over the seating of the new board?

The City Clerk is responsible for certifying the elections and then new board members show up at the next regularly scheduled board meeting, only to find that the City Clerk is gone, Neighborhood Empowerment no longer attends NC meetings, and there is some confusion over what authority facilitates the process.

One NC floundered as they waited on the the results of an election grievance and the certification of the election, only to find themselves in limbo as the time came for the new board to be seated. Two months had gone by, the old board had moved on, the new board politely waited for a determination on who seats the new board?

Second, under what authority does the new board take its seats and the resulting authority over council business?

According to the City Clerk generated Election Procedures, once the election results are certified, the old board convenes the next regularly scheduled board meeting and is responsible for seating the new board. Typically, this is painless but in some cases it has been a problem.

One NC had no quorum of the old board but simply took a quorum of the new board as legitimate authority to seat the new board and to proceed with NC business. What message does this send to new board members is the first thing they learn is that the quickest way to conduct NC business is to look for “workarounds” in order to navigate LA’s bureaucracy.

Third, what agency or authority is responsible for any appeals or claims of inappropriate board activity?

One NC had its elections certified but the outgoing Board President chose to fill the unfilled seats by appointment before passing the gavel. The newly elected board showed up at the regularly scheduled meeting but they weren’t seated and the gavel wasn’t passed. Another lost opportunity and another bad lesson for the new board members.

Through it all, some City Councilmembers have partnered with their neighborhood councils, facilitating neighborhood council board transitions by honoring the outgoing boardmembers and recognizing them for their contributions, by recognizing the election results and honoring the stakeholders for their participation, and by swearing in the new board and offering their partnership in the impending journey. It's good to have friends, especially in high places! But this was the exception, not the norm.

Ultimately, the limbo period is a huge problem for neighborhood councils because of the impending deadline for NC budgets for the upcoming 2010/2011 year. How can an NC effectively engage the community and plan for the upcoming year if they can’t find the gavel and seat the incoming board?

This failure to anticipate the conflict between the individual NC bylaws and the City Clerk election procedures was discussed at the beginning of the transition process and dismissed as a simple procedural necessity. For DONE? For the City Clerk? Certainly not for the neighborhood councils!

This failure to anticipate the limbo zone between the City Clerk and the DONE is indicative of the lack of foresight that NC’s have experienced with literally every decision that has come from City Hall. From funding issues to staffing issues to the elections to the CDD/DONE consolidation, it is apparent unintended consequences are the greatest threat to LA’s neighborhood councils.

This failure to anticipate the need to address board transitions has prompted calls for help, so many that the DONE employee on the “Help Line” acknowledged that “There have been a lot of calls on this issue.” This begs the question, “What good is the ‘Help Line’ if a large number of questions don’t motivate DONE to address the need for information?

The lesson to be learned from the current neighborhood council experience is that neighborhood councils are on their own, that their effectiveness is dependent on their initiative and on their resourcefulness, and that the future of the neighborhood council system requires immediate action from the community, not from City Hall.

(Stephen Box writes Box Soap for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net)

CityWatchLA - The Almost Final Word on NC Funds and the New DONE

CityWatch, May 28, 2010

Vol 8 Issue 42

Conspiracy Theorists have argued that the simplest way to neutralize the neighborhood council system would be to support it with funds that come wrapped in conflicting rules and a vague process, then get out of the way while participatory democracy destroys itself. Based on results, there seems to be a fair amount of evidence that this is a valid theory. After all, as the City of LA grapples with a $7 billion budget that includes draconian staffing cuts and reductions to city services, neighborhood council advocates remain sidetracked by debates over ATM cards, Demand Warrants, Rollover Funds, $45 K budgets and accounting fees. Meanwhile, Rome burns!

If City Hall had actually set out to neutralize the neighborhood council system, to keep them sidetracked and out of the way, then by all rights, it appears that the evil plan has worked.

Of course, as Ruth Galanter offered up years ago, to believe in conspiracy theories is to believe in the competency of City Hall, quite a stretch. "Most people look at government and they think it's a conspiracy. It's so hard to believe it's as inept as it is. I used to believe in conspiracies, until I discovered incompetence."

Whether by design or by simple systemic failure, the neighborhood council system is facing a significant crisis that is consuming incredible amounts of advocate energy debating the fine points of neighborhood council funding. From the NC Budget Advocates meetings to local NC meetings, from regional NC Meetings to Board Orientations, from City Council meetings to City Department meetings, and from the Neighborhood Commission meetings to the Education and Neighborhood Committee meetings, it’s all about the NC budget.

The concerns are consistent, the questions are simple, the answers vary from time to time and from place to place, leaving NC advocates a little more on edge as time goes by. The meetings typically draw questions and comments on these co-mingled topics:

● Neighborhood council Rollover funds through 2009.

The account is closed. The City Council has “swept” the rollover funds that neighborhood councils had left over from their budgets through 2008/2009.

Protest from NC’s that the process was unfair resulted in a reprieve and out of approximately $1.5 million in rollover funds, NC’s were able to retrieve approximately $900,000, leaving three groups of dissatisfied NC’s.

Some failed to turn in the appropriate paperwork to qualify for their previously encumbered funds, some claim to have lost their funds due to the confusing rules and process, and some claim that other NC's qualified unjustly as the result of an uneven application of the rules.

According to sources in Councilman Paul Krekorian's office, the process is complete and the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment has closed the books on old rollover funds.

● Neighborhood council Rollover funds from the 2009/2010 budget.

So far, so good. Neighborhood councils with funds left over from their 2009/2010 budget will be able to roll them over into their 2010/2011 budgets.

For all of the drama, the total funds swept as a result of the “assault” on the neighborhood council rollover funds is $600,000. Not a significant payday for the City of Los Angeles when you consider the incredible amount of time spent meeting and discussing and debating and fighting.

● The proposed neighborhood council budget for 2010/2011.

So far, so good. At this point, the proposed budget for neighborhood councils is $45,000 per council. With 91 certified neighborhood councils qualifying for funding, this amounts to $4,095.000 for the entire system. This does not include the budget for the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment.

While the current proposal to fund NC’s at $45,000 each and to allow rollover funds from 2010/2011, the caveat is that it comes with a proposal to require the NC’s to fund their own accounting at as much as 8% which tops out at $327,600 systemwide. $3,600 per council

Critics point out that this is another loss on top of the most significant loss of all, the gutting of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, which leaves the NC system gouged more than virtually any other department in the city.

● The proposed budget for the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment for 2010/2011.

We're still waiting. Based on results, often harsh but always fair, it’s reasonable to say that the budget for the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment is a bit vague.

A number of approximately $3 million has been bandied about but the details seem elusive.

At this writing, the Mayor’s office is unable to offer up specifics, the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment is unable to offer up specifics, the Community Development Department is unable to offer up specifics and the CAO’s office has not yet responded to requests for a breakdown of the Mayor's proposed 2010/2011 Neighborhood Empowerment budget.

On the day that the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment went before the City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee, one Deputy Mayor and two General Managers, complete with an obligatory swarm of staff, sat at the proverbial horseshoe and collectively revealed that the budget details were a mystery to them all. Somehow in the budget journey, the Departments training funds had literally disappeared and nobody had noticed prior to their journey to council chambers.

Short answer: the Mayor’s office and the CAO’s office have promised to meet with NC representatives to explain the intricacies of the proposed budget, just as soon as they get the answers themselves. Whose budget is this?

● The process for funding Neighborhood Councils.

We're on our own! Neighborhood councils are already looking forward to 2010/2011 by preparing a budget as the basic mandate for qualifying for their NC funds.

Beyond that, the rules for actually spending the money are so convoluted and fluid that NC advocates have taken it upon themselves to propose funding structures that address many of the complaints and problems from the past.

Shawn’s Plan now has company from Jay’s Plan which was joined by Adrienne’s Plan and Paul’s Plan. These plans all have something in common. They are an attempt by volunteers to fill the void left by those who are literally on the clock but are unable to come up with a simple and effective plan for managing the funds of neighborhood councils.

For all of the schemes, one NC advocate pointed out it only amounts to a half dozen checks per month per NC yet the City of LA has somehow made it into a cumbersome process that defies comprehension.

Another NC advocate pointed out that for all of the audits and criticism, it wasn’t the NC’s that came under fire but the system itself that allowed such deviation and discrepancy.

Through it all, it is apparent that there is an absence of leadership and it is an incredible distraction that is keeping many talented and well-meaning volunteers from engaging in the real and significant citywide budget debates, all in an effort to manage NC funds.

● The proposed consolidation of the Community Development Department and the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment.

Opposition is mounting! As of Wednesday’s Education and Neighborhood Committee meeting, it’s safe to say that the proposal to consolidate the two departments is far from over.

Committee Chair Paul Krekorian has received accolades for his commitment to engaging the community in the process and based on the public testimony, the consolidation plan has few, if any, fans.

Critics from around the city consistently line up during public comment to give testimony to the claim that the current system is broken, the proposed consolidation is hardly an improvement and that the neighborhood council system deserves better.

Critics of the consolidation offer many reasons for their opposition including:

DONE is a charter department, CDD is an ordinance department. To consolidate and then refer to the new organization as CDD/DONE is to rename the new department CDD or Community Development. In one fell swoop, Neighborhood Empowerment has been subsumed and no longer exists in the vernacular of the City of Los Angeles. (Conspiracy Theorists perked up!)

CDD’s mandate is dramatically different from DONE’s, there may be overlap but that is true for many departments. This does not bode well for DONE if the host department answers to federal grant regulations while the DONE answers to the City Charter and the will of the people.

The people of Los Angeles lose connectivity to the Mayor and the City Council if their department no longer has a General Manager but instead has an Executive Director who answers to an Assistant General Manager who answers to the General Manager who then answers to the Mayor.

The proposal to move the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment around is a smokescreen and avoids the real need, a systemic overhaul that addresses the failures of the past and positions the neighborhood council system for success. “It’s not where you park it, it’s how you park it.”

The consolidation proposal is superficial and the General Manager of CDD is light on the details, hardly the beginning of a fruitful and successful relationship.

Ultimately, Councilman Paul Krekorian summed it up best when he said “If policy decisions are to be driven by budget savings, then the budget savings must be real. Most important, the proposal must be effective for the neighborhood council system and I remain unconvinced that this is the best plan.”

● The vision for neighborhood councils and a commitment to supporting them.

There is none! Through all of the many meetings, it is apparent that for all of the org-chart proposals and budgetary distractions, the core vision for neighborhood councils is missing from the discussion.

The merger details, the funding proposals, the staffing structure are all meaningless if the City of Los Angeles doesn’t support the neighborhood council system with a department that is committed to a clearly articulated vision.

● The value of balancing the city's budget on the backs of the neighborhood councils.

There is none! At last week's Board of Neighborhood Commissioners meeting I counted 15 people who were on the City of LA Payroll, all sitting obediently and waiting obediently for their moment of contribution.

Wednesday's Education and Neighborhoods Committee meeting was more of the same. From Deputy Mayors to City Councilmembers to Mayoral and Council Staff to General Managers to City staff in numbers that would dwarf even the most bloated Hollywood entourage, and all to look for the crumbs in the sofas of the neighborhood councils. We don't even have sofas!

Neighborhood councils deserve support, a system that operates efficiently and effectively. There is no chance of balancing the City's anticipated half-billion-dollar budget shortfall by squeezing the neighborhood council system. To keep trying demonstrates a severe case of City Council and Mayoral innumeracy.

To continue the discussion regarding neighborhood councils, visit cd2policy.wordpress.com where Councilman Krekorian has a running poll on what people think should happen regarding the proposed consolidation.

(Stephen Box writes for CityWatch and views City Hall through his own unique lens. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net)

CityWatchLA - A Double Standard at LA’s Hypocrisy Hall

CityWatch, May 21, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 40

When visiting LA's City Hall, keep in mind that the beautiful front doors on Spring Street are for the exclusive use of City Hall staff while the back doors are for the public. This "two-tier" system of access is an apt metaphor for the double standard that applies to those who govern Los Angeles and to those who are governed.

Consider the tremendous display of irony at Monday's Board of Neighborhood Commissioners' Retreat when the General Manager of CDD reported that the money to fund the training of neighborhood councils on the management of NC funds somehow fell from the proposed budget, something he glossed over as a "mistake." This "mistake" somehow made it into the Mayor's proposed budget, made it all the way to the City Council, and is now on its way back to the Mayor for final approval.

Who watches the Watchmen?

The board retreat opened with a commitment to Transparency and Accountability and a mandate to address the impact of the proposed merger of the departments of Community Development and Neighborhood Empowerment on the Neighborhood Council system.

The 7 Commissioners were surrounded by 3 staffers from the Mayor's office, 5 staffers from Neighborhood Empowerment, 3 staffers from Community Development, 2 staffers from the City Attorney, and the retreat was facilitated by 2 staffers from Human Relations. Whew! 15 people on the clock to facilitate a board retreat for 7 Commissioners and about a dozen members of the public.

Yet nobody sounded the "Transparency and Accountability" alarm when it was revealed that a Deputy Mayor and two General Managers allowed the budget for Neighborhood Empowerment to make it all the way through the system without doing the math. It may be "budget dust" in the grand scheme of a $7 billion budget but for the neighborhood council system, $84,000 is significant.

More important than the loss of the Neighborhood Empowerment NC training budget is the fact that the very people who sit in a position of authority, contemplating "drastic measures" for the volunteers of neighborhood councils such as imposed mandatory training and funding suspensions, are not bound by the same performance standards.

The proposed Neighborhood Council review system, where city staff would rate councils and determine if they are "Low Functionality" or "Medium Functionality" or "High Functionality" and then prescribe appropriate measures for addressing their performance, should be turned on its ear and applied to those in City Hall.

The proposed matrix of performance standards is not bad. It reviews everything from Funding to Outreach to Collaboration to Technology. It's just aimed at the wrong people.

Now is the time to ask the hard questions of those folks who use City Hall's front door. It starts with "Where's the money?"

(Stephen Box writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - Villaraigosa: Buck Does Not Stop Here

CityWatch, Apr 23, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 32

Mayor Villaraigosa's State of the City address on Tuesday was light on details and thin on vision, failing to qualify as either a battle cry worthy of the city's budget crisis or a call to action worthy of a vision for saving the city. Instead, the crowd of friendlies assembled at LAPD's Deaton Hall were treated to a carefully seeded oratorical journey that absolved our leadership of any responsibility and concluded with the tepid admonishment "We can do better."

Gone was any pretense of surveying the landscape and evaluating our position as a world class city, after all, it would have been the same as last year's State of the City address with a slight adjustment in the figures to account for any slippage. Instead, Villaraigosa jumped right in and sidestepped the traditional State of the City review of "all things we’ve accomplished and all the things we intend to do" and committed to taking on "our city budget and what we must do to solve our deficit and hone our mission of the Angels."

Villaraigosa then embarked on a meandering narrative that left a trail of carefully crafted messages:

1) It's not our fault!

Villaraigosa opened hard with a reference to the Dow, then followed with a story of his Grandfather during the Great Depression, concluding with an appraisal of the current Recession, positioning Los Angeles as the victim of these mean times, not as a city in control of its destiny. This abdication of responsibility fell far short of any "Buck stops here!" leadership and instead positioned LA as a ship adrift, a metaphor that was supported by Villaraigosa's claim that "we aren’t going to get blown off course by this economic storm."

2) Don't touch the LAPD!

The State of the City address was delivered across the street from City Hall at LAPD HQ's Deaton Hall. Board of Police Commissioners President John W. Mack introduced Villaraigosa who was interrupted by applause only once and that was when he slipped in the claim that "Our neighborhoods are the safest they have been since the Eisenhower administration." This followed an acknowledgment the LAPD is the largest that it has ever been but no mention was made of the impact to the city's budget.

3) Prepare to pay more!

Somehow the focus on the City's Budget included a journey down memory lane starting with the 2006 trash collection fee increase, the 2007 telephone users tax, and the 2008 Measure R. "Time and again, the citizens of Los Angeles have proven that they are willing to invest when we explain the challenges accurately and present the options honestly." This is the compliment that will come back soon with a price tag.

4) Plan ahead for a plan!

Villaraigosa both acknowledged the obtuse and complicated nature of the DWP and yet positioned it as the vessel that would deliver us to our destination as "the undisputed national leader in green energy and green jobs." Promising a plan for transparency and efficiency in the next few months, this element of the "Budget Report" was vague enough to leave the audience wondering how this related to the budget crisis unless...gasp...the DWP would be a key element in balancing the budget, but only if the public contributed more in rates, all in the best interest of developing a green economy.

5) Partner with the private sector!

City-owned parking garages, the Los Angeles Zoo, the Convetion Center, the municipal golf courses and LA's parking meters were all mentioned as opportunities to create revenue, albeit on the condition that the city services "be delivered to the public at the same, or greater level of quality." It was apparent that this transition is well underway and it came with the promise that "This is new revenue that can only be found through these partnerships and it is revenue that the city sorely needs."

6) Criticize at your own peril!

The Mayor dismisses those who would debate or criticize as "pundits" and "cynics" who are responsible for the erosion of LA's civic unity. At the same time he acknowledges stepping on a few rakes in his handling of recent DWP issues and positions himself as critical of his own budget claiming "We can do better." This is hardly the battle cry of a leader who is about to ask the city staff to share in his sacrifice. This is hardly the vision of a leader who is about to ask the public to invest in the future of Los Angeles. This is far from the beginning negotiating position of a leader who is about to engage in a fire-sale of the city's assets. Villaraigosa was right about one thing, Los Angeles can do better!

I attended the Mayor's State of the City address as one of the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates. There came a moment when the personalities of those present faded into the background and I became aware of the fact that Deaton Hall was filled with LA's elected leadership including the City Council, Judges, the School Board, the City Attorney, the City Controller, the Chiefs of the LAPD and the LAFD, Consuls General and the City's Managers and Commissioners. I was proud to be counted as one of the "Fellow Angelenos" and when we stood to acknowledge the Mayor's entrance, it was because he is the leader of the Greatest City in the World.

There were some keywords in the State of the City address that leave me wondering if some of the work done in the community has resonated and percolated and made its way into the Mayor's vision, such as it is. For example, when he referred to the Private-Public Partnership, he acknowledged the need for guiding principles, a recommendation made to the Mayor by the NCs' Budget Advocates a couple of weeks ago. When I heard him refer to Safe Streets, I could only hope that it was as a result of the community support for then-Assemblyman Paul Krekorian's AB766 "Safe Streets Bill" of last year. Most of all, when I heard him talk of the backbone of our transportation infrastructure, I knew that the Backbone Bikeway Network was on its way to becoming a reality.

That being said, the pressure is on and this State of the City address is far from Villaraigosa's best effort. It falls far short of qualifying as a resounding call to action or a reasonable presentation of a plan that the people of Los Angeles can rally around. Those days lie ahead and, unfortunately for the Mayor, it's evident that the responsibility lies on the people of Los Angeles, not on the leadership. This one is on us!

Here come the cyclists - "Call for Backup!"

If you ever find yourself craving a lecture on private property, a charge of trespassing, a threat of physical force, a claim to your property, and a complete insult to your intelligence, hop on a bicycle and ride over to the Museum Square building on Wilshire Blvd. Enter the parking lot on the west side of the property and try to lock up your bike. For some reason, the simple sight of a cyclist at this "professionally" managed building is enough to inflame the sensibilities of those in charge, sending the property manager and security guards into combat mode, calling for reinforcements and applying the "bicycle boot" to the offending bikes.

To be fair, this behavior is hardly unique to the Museum Square property, and is actually so prevalent that it leaves one wondering if the first day of Security 101 training consists of "Whatever you do, make sure you harass the cyclists. If you don't, they might feel welcome and then they'll come back. That will be the beginning of the end."

Our most significant "standoffs" with security have occurred when we arrived on bikes at the Harmony Gold Theater, the Arco Plaza, the Dorothy Chandler, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science, Raleigh Studios, the City of LA's Marvin Braude Constituent Services Center, locations where the bike racks were either full, insufficient or broken, or simply non-existent. The "standoff" typically results when uniformed (tempted to write uninformed but that would more appropriately apply to the property manager) security forces anticipate our desire to secure our bikes in a safe location and block our efforts with threat of seizure.

Seizure?

At Harmony we brokered a truce, at Arco we acquiesced, at the Dorothy Chandler we simply ignored, at the Academy we folded, at Raleigh we cooperated, at Braude we prevailed. At the Museum Square, they have twice applied the "bicycle boot" requiring an appeal to the management for the release of the offending bicycle. (This "punishment" is also reported at Hollywood & Highland and at Westfield - Fashion Square)

Through it all, we discovered that a follow-up call to those who have a financial stake in the operation of the building or facility typically prompts an apology and an acknowledgement that their in-security forces were inappropriately zealous. This "reversal" usually follows the discovery that their staff are threatening to seize personal property and that the City of Los Angeles actually has a Municipal Code that dictates the minimum amount, the structural type, and the location of mandatory bike parking. It at this point in the conversation that some crafty property managers point out that their building is of such age that surely the muni code wouldn't apply. (Mr. John Cotter of Museum Square smugly applied this exemption) Of course, the recent building permits for the recent remodels/improvements require them to bring the facility up to code and this leaves their Certificate of Occupancy in jeopardy, a condition that does not bode well for their job security.

1) Safe, secure, and effective bike parking is simply smart. It efficiently reduces the need to accommodate motor vehicles. A simple bike corral (convert a car parking space into a protected bike parking space) will hold a dozen bikes, easily a wise trade-off and yet somehow unfathomable to those who sit and stare at parking facilities and ponder "How can I squeeze another motor vehicle into this vast wasteland of car parking?" Are the people who hassle cyclists aware that many of these facilities are also engaged in Transportation Demand Management strategies that will reduce the number of vehicle trips generated and purportedly encourage pedestrians, cyclists, mass transit passengers? Effective Bike Parking is the simple beginning of a TDM program. Aggressive and threatening behavior is the best way to kill a TDM program.

Property Managers - encourage cyclists by installing and maintaining effective bike parking.

2) There are standards for bike parking. First, "Location, Location, Location!" Second, visibility and space. Third, bike rack design. All three count, two out of three results in stolen bikes. It is imperative that the property managers engage professionals and demonstrate a simple commitment to excellence. Treat your guests and employees and patrons with a little respect, the same respect that your guards demand, and install bike parking that works. It's cheaper to do it correctly and it's so easy to demonstrate your professionalism by hiring professionals.

Property Managers - respect cyclists by providing quality bike racks in an appropriate location.

3) Bad bike racks encourage crime. The "broken windows" theory of crime prevention holds that simple and small signs send a message to criminals that an environment is either a good target or a bad target for crime. Broken bike racks, stripped bikes, racks in bad locations, seclusion and isolation are all salt licks for criminals. The Arco Towers were recently in the news as the location of a serial bike thief who spent several days stealing bikes from the same location. The bike racks are isolated, they are wheel-bender racks, they are poorly located. Based on results, often harsh but always fair, the property manager of the Arco Towers has known since last year that there was a problem but it just wasn't a priority.

Property Managers - protect cyclists by discouraging criminal activity on your property.

4) Community Policing is everybody's responsibility. Criminals look for soft targets and crime in LA is down in most categories but bike thefts are up 29% in LA, 57% in the Downtown area. Why? Because it's so easy. Because the bikes are a commodity. Because stolen bikes translate into quick cash and there is little risk of getting challenged or caught. LAPD Senior Lead Officers typically make the rounds of homeowner associations, community groups and neighborhood councils, maintaining relationships, giving updates, encouraging community policing and offering advice. Invariably, the SLO will advise the audience to remove valuables and lock their cars, depriving potential thieves of any target. Never have I heard them give any advice on how or where to lock a bike. Yet, this is the crime that is skyrocketing in Los Angeles.

Property Managers -partner with cyclists and make safety and security a priority.

Most of all, consider this; what's good for cyclists is good for the community. Improve the quality of life in your neighborhood by installing a decent bike rack and by treating cyclists with respect. Everybody benefits!

btw:

From the Los Angeles Municipal Code: (LAMC 12.21-A. 16)

16. Bicycle Parking and Shower Facilities. (Added by Ord. No. 167,409, Eff. 12/19/91.) Off-street parking spaces for bicycles and facilities for employee showers and lockers shall be provided as follows:

(a) In the C and M zones, for any building, portion thereof or addition thereto used for non-residential purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet, bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of two percent of the number of automobile parking spaces required by this section for such non-residential uses; provided, however, that at least one bicycle parking space shall be provided for any such building having a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet of non-residential use. If the calculation of the number of required spaces under this paragraph results in a number including a fraction, the next highest whole number shall be the number of spaces required.

(b) The bicycle parking space requirements in Paragraph (a) shall also apply to any building, regardless of zone, owned by the City of Los Angeles and used by the City for government purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet.

(c) All bicycle parking spaces required by this Subdivision shall include a stationary parking device which adequately supports the bicycle. In addition, at least half of the bicycle parking spaces shall include a stationary parking device which securely locks the bicycle without the use of a user-supplied cable or chain. Devices which hold the bicycle upright by wheel contact must hold at least 180 degrees of wheel arc.

(d) Each bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of two feet in width and six feet in length and shall have a minimum of six feet of overhead clearance.

(e) Bicycle parking spaces shall be located no farther than the distance from a main entrance of the building to the nearest off-street automobile parking space.

(f) Bicycle parking spaces shall be separated from automobile parking spaces or aisles by a wall, fence, or curb or by at least five feet of open space marked to prohibit parking.

(g) Aisles providing access to bicycle parking spaces shall be at least five feet in width.

(h) Signage which is clearly legible upon approach to every automobile entrance to the parking facility shall be displayed indicating the availability and location of bicycle parking.

(i) Showers and lockers shall be provided as required by Section 91.6307 of this Code. (Amended by Ord. No. 177,103, Eff. 12/18/05.)