Optimism, It’s Our Only Choice!

CityWatch, Dec 30, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 104

MOVING LA FORWARD - This past week, I was at a political event that was disguised as a holiday party, or maybe it was a holiday party disguised as a political event, but either way I found myself elbow to elbow with candidates running for office and the political operatives who wage the battles and stage the campaigns.

It was against this background that I found myself talking with a candidate for citywide office who had just welcomed a newborn child into his home two weeks ago. Surrounded by the din of political aspirations and machinations, we ended up comparing notes on our experiences with the nocturnal feeding habits of our infants, firmly putting the travails of the world in perspective.

As I traded “new father” anecdotes with one of the most powerful men in Los Angeles, I realized that our experiences contained within them the lessons that could move LA forward.

Here are five things I’ve learned as the proud father of a newborn baby boy:

Pay Attention: A heightened state of awareness can be an exhausting experience, but it actually results in greater energy and productivity. “More effort takes less effort” may seem counterproductive but it works!

Keep Close: Babies raised in cultures that favor contact over separation cry less. It’s true no matter how old we are, social connections are the key to happiness.

Give Thanks: To hold a newborn baby is to connect with the powerful energy of thankfulness. I count my blessings as I look my newborn son's perfection and as I experience the overwhelming support of our community of friends and family.

Keep Moving: Nothing brings a smile like going for a walk, even if it’s just a small journey around the neighborhood, and it’s a reminder that we were born for action.

Be Positive: Our energy is contagious and to see a baby mimic our attitudes and emotions is to experience the incredible responsibility that demands our optimism. After all, it’s our only choice, that and then delivering on our promise to make it come true.

As for the party, I’m sure the food was great and that lots of good work was done, but from where I stood, it all faded into the background as two fathers slowed down, just for a moment, and connected with the power of optimism and its rightful place in our immediate future.

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

CityWatchLA - The Politics of Language

CityWatch, Jan 14, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 4

Ballot Measures:
Political Kabuki

It’s ballot measure season, that time of the year when obfuscation becomes a blood sport and Jabberwocky becomes the battle cry!

There are ten ballot measures scheduled for public vote on LA’s March 8 Primary Election and the people of Los Angeles are well-advised to approach carefully and to read cautiously because all is not as it seems.

This claim is backed up by a simple survey of past ballot measures and sleight of hand proposals such as the recent statewide Prop 22 which was positioned as “protecting” local development dollars and “preventing” another State of California “hand-out” of public revenue.

Somehow the movement of local money to the state level and then back to local schools and hospitals was billed as a “hand-out” while the “protection” of developers at the expense of the community was positioned as a “public benefit”.

LA’s Telephone Utility Users Tax was a thinly veiled plan from Mayor Villaraigosa to preserve an illegal 10% tax by offering the “victims” an opportunity to approve a 9% tax. Several city council members presented the ballot measure as “tax relief” even though voters could have eliminated the entire tax, simply by voting against the proposal.

Somehow an indictment of the City of LA’s court challenged policy of seizing 10% illegally was avoided by offering “tax relief” and discussion was cut short when the city invoked a “218 emergency” which expedited the ballot measure allowing it to pass with a simple majority rather than a two-thirds vote.

LA City’s Measure R from 2006 was positioned as “ethics reform” yet somehow its most significant impact was the extension of term limits for the members of LA’s City Council from two four-year terms to three.

Somehow the promises of “no more free meals” and “no more tickets to sporting events and concerts” distracted the voters just long enough and LA City Councilmembers were given an additional four years to continue the good work of “resisting lobbyists” and “imposing tough reforms on contract bidders.”

Along the way, the public is seduced with “a frank, open discussion” of “community benefits” from leadership that continues to promise to be “honest, effective and accountable to the voters.”

Somehow these promises are offered to the public as if accountability and performance are “going beyond” the minimum standard. Meanwhile, the public is left scratching its collective head in an effort to translate the impending legislation and ballot measures.

Consider this scenario.

A group of Angelenos are walking down the street when they are accosted by a mugger. “Give me $10,000 or else!” he demands. The victims put their money together and discover that they have $9,000 which they offer to the mugger. “But please don’t hurt us!” they plead.

In the language of City Hall ballot measures, the Angelenos experienced “relief” that resulted in a 10% reduction of the original “burden” and the fact that their request to escape physical harm was honored could be construed as a “community benefit” but their behavior appears to be a “hand-out” that could trigger an ethics investigation.

While the scenario borders on the absurd, it is also the basic pattern of “either/or” governance that pits fans of libraries against fans of parks while the disabled and senior citizens compete for budget dust.

Through it all, the clock ticks and “Sell LA” gets underway while City Hall continues the battle cry of “either we give up the crown jewels or we’re firing the staff!”

The people of Los Angeles deserve open, honest, and transparent governance and the most immediate opportunity is with the upcoming City Council driven ballot measures and the full range of options.

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.