LA's Scandalous Housing Authority: For Better or For Worse

Photo: KCET’s SoCal Connected/LA Weekly

CityWatch, Dec 13, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 99

RETHINKING LA - The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) is the latest department to fall victim to the oversight and accountability scrum that starts when the media shines a spotlight and concludes when the public gets bored.

Along the way, the City Controller and the City Council will elbow each other out of the way in an effort to get to the press conference where they will ask "How did someone get away with this?" and they will declare “They cannot walk away and say ‘I don't know.’” and then conclude “It seems like there was no one in charge ... we need to get to the bottom of it.” (Zine, Cardenas, Greuel)

(Ed note: Mayor Villaraigosa sent a letter on Monday to the Board of Commissioners overseeing the HACLA urging reform.)

There are three things wrong with the current scenario over at HACLA, in addition to the $1.2 million pay-off to the terminated GM and the ongoing investigations into corruption, malfeasance, incompetence, and failure to perform.

First, it’s old news yet the folks at City Hall react as if this behavior is unique, rare, and shocking. It isn’t. It’s business as usual in a city that allows departments that are “flush with cash” to conduct business with little, if any, interference from the Department of What-the-Hell!

It was HACLA’s current CEO, Ken Simmons, who excused the financial indiscretions of the past by explaining that the agency was “flush with cash.”

During last year’s budget hearings, the LADOT’s Acting GM, Amir Sedadi, defended the large number of bonuses in his department by explaining “Our contract allows it.” Forget about the staffing reductions and the dramatic budget cuts, it was business as usual in a department that was “flush with cash” that comes from parking revenue.

This sense of entitlement is the norm, not the exception, as evidenced by city employees from many different departments who appeared before City Council during the staffing cuts and proclaimed, “You can’t cut me, I’m special funded!”

Second, it’s a familiar pattern of abuse that occurs because oversight and accountability can’t find a  place in departments that get their marching orders from the Mayor, implemented by General Managers who serve at his pleasure and condoned by Kabuki Theater Commissions armed with rubber stamps.

The charade of citizen oversight allows the Mayor to reward supporters with impotent positions of honor and to fast track ambitious allies on a trail that meanders from the Taxi Commission and the Transportation Commission before hitting the lucrative Public Works Commission payday that comes with an annual salary of $123,317 plus car!

Third, it’s an example of the disparity between the “flush with cash” departments and the “general fund” departments, one that keeps the public embroiled in budget crisis triage while Airports, Ports, and Water & Power operate as if sovereign nations.

Add to the mix any department that has federal, state and county money, (Housing, Transportation, Public Works, etc) and these are the departments that are operating with Mayoral impunity, partnering with private sector in deals that benefit Mayoral allies while the public debates broken sidewalks and collapsing infrastructure.

Periodically, the public catches a glimpse of the departmental debauchery that squanders LA’s financial future while failing to deliver on the departmental mandates and the Mayor begins the sacrifices, typically starting with General Managers who have worn out their welcome.

Over the last few years, Mayor Villaraigosa has sung praises to newly appointed General Managers, only to leave town while they receive their walking papers and parting gifts, souvenirs of a tour of duty as Mayoral cannon fodder.

Ultimately, the controversy at HACLA is something that local landlords know about, they’ve been complaining of abuses at the hands of HACLA for years. Neighbors know of the problems because they watch squatters run rampant in City of LA properties while nothing is done. Residents know of the departmental failures that result in a lose-lose situation that punishes participants at every turn.

HACLA is responsible for more than a billion dollars of public money that is meant to be spent providing affordable housing options and supportive services to the people of Los Angeles.

While the City of LA continues to balance the budget on the backs of the people it serves, departments such as HACLA continue to enjoy the “For Better” side of the relationship while the people of LA suffer through the “For Worse” end.

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

CityWatchLA - CRA, Taxes and the CD4 Candidates

CityWatch, Jan 21, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 6

Before Governor Brown astounded the State by proposing to abolish all the Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRA’s), this writer had sent a CRA questionnaire to the candidates for Council District 4.

The candidates for Council District #4 for the March 8, 2011 election are: Councilmember Tom LaBonge, Stephen Box and Tomas O’Grady. Each has a website so readers can see for themselves the biographical information.

The CRA’s were established after WW II as a vehicle to stimulate urban renewal. No city must establish a CRA, but Los Angeles chose to create one, CRA/LA. CRA’s obtain their revenue by taking all the incremental property tax revenue generated by their projects as well as by sometimes taking the sales taxes connected with their projects.

Bunker Hill, for example, has taken in $717 Million in property taxes for the CRA/LA. Overall, CRA/la has taken in $2.8 Billion; $1.2 Billion in the last seven years.

Because the schools had clawed back some of the CRA money by state statute and by lawsuits, the City supported Prop 22 on the November 2010 ballot which made it unconstitutional for any CRA money to go to schools or to the City’s general fund, e.g. for roads. Yes, the City defunded schools in order to give billions to real estate speculators!

Because the City has claimed that it is broke, and thus, it has to fire personnel and reduce services, the fact that the CRA has a multi-million dollar surplus merits public discussion. Hence, the CRA questionnaire.

Councilmember LaBonge’s response:
Councilmember finally made some written responses, although rather brief.

Candidate Tomas O’Grady’s responses:
Mr. O’Grady made long, thoughtful responses showing an openness which all candidates should exhibit.

Candidate Stephen Box responses:
Mr. Box’s also made long and thoughtful responses.

At the outset I believe all Angelenos should be very thankful that Tomas O’Grady and Stephen Box actually believe in openness and wrote extensive, thoughtful answers, knowing that their answers would be used for an article over which they will have no control. Councilmember LaBonge’s answer were short, evasive, and seldom dealt with the issues. Each reader can link to the full answers to form their own opinion about the candidates’ full statements.

Question #1: Should City Council tell the public about the multi-million surplus in the CRA/LA account when discussing the budget?

Labonge:
No. Instead the councilmember wrote: “The intricacies of the funding mechanism in place are available to anyone who seeks them out, and I will always work to make that information available to anyone who wants it. You can also go independently on-line to the city and CRA websites to find this information.”

Councilmember LaBonge will not disclose the data unless someone somehow knows that it exists and then he will give it to that person who apparently already knows about it. Voters can decide whether finding out the city’s true financial condition should be a Game of Hide ‘n Seek.

O’Grady:
Yes, the public should know. Mr. O’Grady has some cogent and specific ideas how the CRA should provide more detailed information. He gave a lot of thought and research into this matter and I urge people to follow the link to his full comments.

Box:
Yes, the council has the duty to communicate all surpluses. Similarly, Mr. Box gave thoughtful answers and people should also read his comments in full.

Question #2: Do you favor abolishing the CRA?

LaBonge:
No. Councilman LaBonge strongly disagrees that the CRA should be abolished. Contrary to the other two candidates, he did not provide any analysis how to deal with the CRA’s financial impact on the city.

O’Grady:
Mr. O’Grady suggests a new Redevelopment Pilot Project to stimulate development from “within communities” as opposed to having large projects imposed on communities by outside developers. I interpret Mr. O’Grady’s comments to be “Yes” for abolishing the current CRA and designing a new one which achieves community objectives.

Box:
Mr. Box’s immediate remedy is to examine the CRA and its relationship to the City of LA and explore options for immediate action, leading up to a Charter Amendment that would abolish the CRA.

Both Mr. O’Grady and Mr. Box provided analysis of the situation and I recommend that readers link on to their full answers.

Update on Question #2: After my CRA questions were posed, Governor Brown announced his plan to abolish the CRA’s. Readers will have to look to candidates’ web sites for discussions of the Governor’s proposal. There will be much discussion in the upcoming weeks about how taxpayers can retrieve their billions upon billions of tax dollars from the CRA’s.

Question #4: Do you support bringing Kelo eminent domain to all of Los Angeles?

Under Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), a city may take property and give it to another private person for that entity’s personal profit. Traditional eminent domain forbids the property going to another person for personal profit. CRA eminent domain is Kelo eminent domain as the properties go to private developers who reap the profits.

LaBonge:
LaBonge supported AB 2531 which would have brought Kelo eminent domain to every parcel in Los Angles. His response today is that he wants to review the matter with the City Attorney.

He opposes “unilateral eminent domain,” but there is no explanation of what he means about unilateral eminent domain, so at best his answer appears to be evasive. One would think that since he supported Kelo eminent domain, he would have some thoughts to share with the voters.

O’Grady:
While he opposed the secretive manner in which AB 2531 was sprung upon the public, Mr. O’Grady would support a new AB 2531 to bring Kelo eminent domain to all of Los Angeles.

Box:
Mr. Box vehemently opposes expansion of eminent domain powers and would oppose any attempt to bring Kelo eminent domain to Los Angeles. He believes as a matter of principle that the government should not take one man’s property and give it to another private citizen.

Question #5: Since the City Attorney may not investigate wrongdoing at City Hall, would you support a charter amendment to bifurcate the City Attorney into two separate offices (1) City Attorney to advise the City, Council and staff, and (2) City Prosecutor whose sole function would be to prosecute criminal wrongdoers?

Because the City Attorney owes fiduciary duties to his clients who are the City, its staff, and its elected officials including the CRA, if a councilmember confides in the City Attorney, “I want to take this cash bribe from developer X,” the City Attorney cannot take action, even if the councilmember stuffs thousands of dollars into his pocket right in front of the City Attorney. Thus, the prosecutor whom the public believes would be most diligent in protecting it from city hall corruption is legally prevented.

LaBonge:
The councilmember states: “This issue deserves further discussion, study and review.”

The point of the questionnaire was to obtain the candidates’ thoughts so that the voters can discuss, study, and review. This is a politician’s “No Comment” answer.

O’Grady:
Mr. O’Grady’s answer is a thoughtful discussion of the different ways the civil and criminal functions of a City Attorney Office may be structured. Mr. O’Grady seems to believe that how the city attorney interprets the “client determination” issue can resolve the matter, and thus, it appears that he is not prepared to support two separate offices. I do not think, however, that this opinion will necessarily be Mr. O’Grady’s position on the subject.

Box:
Mr. Box supports bifurcation so that the City Prosecutor would be free to address any and all criminal matters which the City Attorney now handles plus being able to handle any and all criminal matters including felonies which involve the city, its staff and elected officials. He also supports Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accounta-bility (OPA) who would assist in keeping the City honest.

Final Words:
Both Mr. O’Grady and Mr. Box provided extensive answers taking the city’s problems very seriously. Because literally billions of dollars and the quality of life for Angelenos are at stake, I hope people will take the time to look over their suggestions. Councilmember LaBonge’s seems to think everything is fine as it is.

(Richard Lee Abrams is an attorney in Los Angeles. He can be reached at rickleeabrams@gmail.com )

CD 2 - Bike the Vote!

Today is election day here in Los Angeles and the residents of Council District 2 will be voting in a special election to select a Councilmember to fill the seat vacated by the former Councilmember Wendy Greuel when she was elected as LA's City Controller. LA's Cyclistas will remember Greuel as the chairperson of the Transportation Committee, a fairly jovial group of people who endorsed the Cyclists Bill of Rights, reorganized the Bicycle Advisory Committee, repealed the Bike Licensing Law and jumped up and down and made the appropriate noises when we Stormed the Bastille. Ah, this has been such a great year!

Today, the mix of power shifts ever so slightly but possibly significantly. It all depends on the voters.

Los Angeles has a Mayor and a City Council made up of 15 Councilmembers. A significant number of those in office are lame ducks, politicians in their last term who can't run for reelection. The person who wins the CD2 seat is in a position to set the tone for the next round of candidates who run for the even numbered seats in 2011. That's seven seats and the person who wins today will be setting the pace for that race. As for today, there are ten candidates and it's a bit late to try to cover the many issues and the many positions and the many debates and the many forums. Suffice to say that there are two kinds of candidates, those who embrace the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and those who don't.

Allow me to present video comments from four of the candidates followed by text from two of the candidates. Of the remaining four candidates, they had their chance, they had their opportunity, they missed out on the Cyclistas of Los Angeles and that's on them..

If you live in CD2, please, vote for those who love their local cyclists, after all, as printed in the LATimes:

Love your local bicyclists

By Stephen Box
December 27, 2007

The most elegant solution to L.A. traffic is simply to pedal to where you need to go. If cycling is not for you, at least give some respect to those who choose to ride. Here's why: Cyclists are the "indicator species" for a healthy community.

Cyclists favor well-maintained streets free of potholes and debris. They prefer streets with moderate vehicle volumes and speeds, an environment that is likewise safer and more hospitable for drivers and pedestrians.

Surveys in San Francisco found that local businesses benefited from "traffic calming" through their districts, which included accommodations for cyclists.

Finally, an increase in the number of cyclists in a neighborhood -- which means more eyes on the street -- has a direct relationship to a reduction in crime.

In other words, what's good for cyclists is good for your community.

Now get out and vote! (Los Angeles’ Second Council District stretches from Mulholland Drive in the Hollywood Hills to Big Tujunga Road in the Verdugo Hills. Communities include Lake View Terrace, La Tuna Canyon, North Hollywood, Shadow Hills, Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Sunland, Sun Valley, Tujunga, Valley Village, Valley Glen and Van Nuys)


Mary Benson:



Tamar Galatzan:



Frank Sheftel:



Paul Krekorian:



Michael McCue gave LA.Streetsblog.org the following info:

Q: One of the ways that a City Council Member can effect change for non-motorized users is by appointing informed activists to the city's Bicycle Advisory Committee and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Are you familiar with community activists who could best serve an appointed position on these committees?

A: I consider Stephen Box to be my advisor on these issues and would surely appoint him to Transportation, or recommend him in advisory capacity if given the chance by the voters. I would also consider Stephen to be on the staff for CD-2 if he was interested. Should he desire to remain an unpaid adviser, better for the city budget, but I personally think his input and dedication are worthy of a city salary.

Chris Essel gave LA.Streetsblog.org the following info:

Q: One of the ways that a City Council Member can effect change for non-motorized users is by appointing informed activists to the city's Bicycle Advisory Committee and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Are you familar with community activists who could best serve an appointed position on these committees?

A: Yes. During the last several months on the campaign trail, I have had the pleasure of meeting so many activists who care so much about the future of our community. This includes the indefatigable Stephen Box who educated me about the importance of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, of which I am a supporter.

For more information on the Candidates and their positions on Transportation Issues, visit http://la.streetsblog.org/category/special-features/cd-2-special-election/

Bike Writers Collective at Antioch University

Erik, Alex and I were invited by Antioch University to present at their all-day "A Future Without Cars" forum, an event that featured urban planners, environmentalists and bike activists challenging the grad students and faculty from Antioch to imagine a better way.

All three of us chose to PowerPointificate on our unique approaches to changing the world, one bike at a time, and on reflection, I note that we represent fully one-quarter of the Bike Writers Collective. (One of the effects of spending time with Dr. Alex, our resident mathematician, is that I see things more statistically than before!)

Erik, one half of the Homegrown Evolution duo, opened strong with his sustainable approach to riding a bike and took us on a journey over the last century, painting a dismal picture of the decline of society and the direction our communities are headed. His call to action literally challenged the audience to get up on their high horse and ride a bike, as a duty, an obligation, an imperative if we are to truly change the world.

I've seen Erik's presentation at Caltrans and at USC and I enjoyed it as much, if not more, than ever. Okay, I enjoyed it more. This time he added a new close, pointing out that LA has a car-free population comparable to San Francisco and Chicago (10%) and that for many this isn't a "change the world, reduce the carbon-footprint, lose some weight, etc." choice, but simple economics. For many the bike isn't a statement but a simple brutal reality of not having the money to operate an automobile. It is at this point that Erik positions riding a bike in LA and our support of riding as a civil rights issue. Strong finish!

Alex took off on a journey that promotes the use of F.U.N. as a tool for encouraging cyclists, a journey I felt compelled to interrupt, pointing out that the best way to encourage cycling was to promote the rights that cyclists possess and to affirm those rights and inform the community.

That was the opening shot of the F.U.N. vs. Rights debate, a mano y mano battle that went to the wire, with Alex giving detail on how bike culture has grown exponentially over the last couple of years because of the success of the many rides that were simply fun. These rides drew people in, gave them skills and confidence and utilized the many popular social networking hubs to create a foundation of communication and community that has resulted in a strong presence on the streets.

I conceded that riding a bike is fun but pointed out that one by one, every single right articulated on the Cyclists' Bill of Rights had tested, challenged and violated on one of the many rides over the past couple of years and that if cyclists didn't know they had rights, they were likely to accept violations, limitations and restrictions without question and that this had a dampening effect on bike culture. On the other hand, cyclists equipped with knowledge of their rights, riding a bike with the Cyclists' Bill of Rights spoke card tucked into their spokes, were a force to be reckoned with and they were on their way to changing the world.

We both conceded that the other had made good points. Alex exclaimed "Hey you got Rights all over my F.U.N.!" and I acknowledged "Hey, you got F.U.N. all over my Rights!" and we agreed that it was a draw, but we both vowed to prevail on the inevitable rematch.

It was good to be challenged, it was good to stand before the choir, it was good to debate and it was good F.U.N.!

"See you on the Streets!"