CityWatchLA - Big Obstacles for Small Businesses

CityWatch, Feb 22, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 15

CUTTING THROUGH THE RED TAPE

Last week I claimed “one of the simplest strategies for jump-starting LA’s local economy would be to retool the current ‘bigger is better’ approach to business development in favor of a model that supports small businesses.”

That proverbial swing at the hornet’s nest drew quick protests from both bureaucrats and academics.

Cries of “We’re already doing it!” to “It’ll never work!” coming from people who are content with a faltering economy left me convinced that I was on the right track.

From inside City Hall I heard, “Deputy Mayor Austin Beutner is already committed to streamlining the process so that small businesses don’t have to deal with so many departments.”

Apart from the fact that such a common sense standard applies to everybody, not just small businesses, this claim of victory falls so far short as to simply be an irrelevant non-starter.

Small businesses face obstacles at the local, county, state, and federal level and it is imperative that the City of LA leverage funding to create a network of support for those who are in the best position to create jobs for Angelenos.

By way of example, Film LA is a nonprofit that services the film industry and navigates the interdepartmental multi-jurisdictional journey for film production, a model that could be used to support small businesses. At one time, Film LA also collected data that was used to support the industry, again a model for leveraging funding and political will to drive the success of small businesses.

Small businesses spend 36 % more per employee than larger firms to comply with federal regulations. Very small firms spend 4 ½ times as much per employee to comply with environmental regulations and 3 times more per employee on tax compliance than their largest counterparts.

Cutting red-tape at city hall is a nice start but it is only a start. LA must take a leadership role in leveraging federal funds to create Small Business Development Centers that support LA’s entrepreneurs.

From Academia I heard “every day, many small businesses fail. Why pour our money into small businesses, many of which are likely to fail?”

Businesses fail, both small and large, but the simple fact is this: small businesses are responsible for generating 65% of net new jobs over the past 17 years.

As for longevity, 7 out of 10 new employer firms survive at least 2 years, ½ at least 5 years, ⅓ at least 10 years, and ¼ stay in business 15 years or more.

Perhaps it’s time to look at the obstacles that impact the survival rate, not simply cut our losses and walk away. While “facilitating the permitting process and eliminating other administrative barriers to growth” are noble first steps, they are simply first steps.

Small businesses struggle for working capital, for access to markets, and for the resources and benefits that will allow them to compete for talented and skilled employees.

Yet, somehow they are able to produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms. Somehow they are able to create and innovate and prosper while those in control debate their value.

Now is the time to come out from behind the City Hall counter, to get off the academic high horse, and to meet the small businesses on the street, where our economy takes place.

Start with the City of LA as a client and consider how difficult it is to do business in LA. Small businesses currently find it difficult to bid on City Hall contracts while larger companies find the process so cumbersome that the price immediately goes up when the City of LA is the client.

This is why small businesses eventually give up and move to surrounding communities where they find a supportive environment and eager customers. If City Hall can’t clean up City Hall, there’s no chance they’ll ever clean up the City of LA!

A couple of years ago, I sat with a group of community advocates in a small facility that was going to be developed as a community room. It was in a brand new building and our room needed to be finished.

A little paint, a little carpet. We were excited!

Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way in LA. Apparently no one will bid on a contract so small. We were told to think big!

The next time we met, an architect had come on board and the “finishing work” now had a budget of $250,000. Now this was a project that was worth bidding on!

The community room was never finished, it still sits empty, unpainted and uncarpeted. The weight of bureaucracy crushed it and the bias in favor of large companies willing to do business with LA reared its ugly head and destroyed our hopes for a community room.

Ironically, we were not allowed to do the work ourselves because we weren’t an approved vendor for the City of LA.

Small businesses are the backbone of LA’s local economy. They are agile and they are flexible and they put Angelenos to work. They provide the services and products that LA’s City Hall needs and that is the place to start.

City Hall’s role is not to make an “either/or” choice between large and small companies, it’s to support them based on their value and their potential for success.

That simple standard puts small businesses in a priority position for City Hall’s support!

(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: Complaint-Driven City

CityWatch, Feb 18, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 14

The City of LA is one of the greatest cities in the world but it is also one of the most dysfunctional, one where the delivery of city essential city services is driven by complaints, not a commitment to performance standards that the people of LA can depend on.

Councilmembers position themselves as gatekeepers who fill potholes and install speed humps as if they were personal favors bestowed upon the select few who have access to the council office.

This “pothole politics” approach to running the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world takes place while the budget deficit spirals out of control, while our infrastructure is collapsing, and while development runs amok.

It simply isn’t working. You shouldn’t have to go to your council office to get smooth, safe, well-lit streets that move traffic and get you where you need to go. You shouldn’t have to call 311 to state the obvious, that the large hole in the street appears to be...gulp...a pothole!

The simple reality is this, the city knows where the potholes are. They are measuring outrage and they are limiting liability.

The City Attorney regularly pays for damages caused by potholes, if the pothole had been reported before the incident. Your 311 calls don’t help the city find the potholes, they help the city absolve itself of responsibility and liability for the potholes not reported.

The Bureau of Street Services not only knows where the potholes are, they know where the new ones are likely to appear. BOSS surveys 69,000 street segments with a van that is loaded with video, laser, and computer equipment in a data collection process that takes three years to complete. They have the data.

What they don’t have is the support of City Council on simply moving forward with an aggressive and comprehensive plan for repairing our streets and sidewalks.

There’s no mystery as to the location of the potholes and broken sidewalks. The missing element is simply political will, the commitment to craft a budget that supports the Great City mandate.

Public Safety, Public Works, Public Health, and Public Education are the cornerstones of a Great City and it is imperative that the City of LA craft a budget that is balanced for the long-term and matches our long-term commitment to a well-planned and well-funded city.

The City of LA is bleeding money on short term fixes while ignoring the need for long term solutions.

The era of pothole politics is over.

Now is the time to demand a standards-driven city, one where our city administration delivers services according to standards that the people of LA can depend on!

(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 - Times of Crisis: Think Small

CityWatch, Feb 15, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 13

LA NEEDS TO SUPPORT SMALL BIZ

As the Active ImageCity of LA wallows in the midst of a staggering budget shortfall, it appears that one of the simplest strategies for jumpstarting LA’s local economy would be to retool the current “bigger is better” approach to business development in favor of a model that supports small businesses.

According to the latest jobs report, only 36,000 new jobs were added to the national economy in the month of January. At the same time, figures from Intuit Payroll’s monthly Small Business Employment Index show that payroll clients with fewer than 20 employees added 70,000 new jobs during the same month. The City of LA invests valuable time and resources courting large corporations but the results fail to justify the effort. Meanwhile, small businesses are demonstrating an agility and adaptability that allows them to leverage small investments into huge payoffs in jobs created, services provided, and overall economic impact.

Nationwide, small businesses have added more than 1 million jobs since October 2009 but in Los Angeles, where fully two-thirds of the local economy is made up of small businesses, entrepreneurs capable of bidding on local contracts clearly communicate the need for municipal assistance to jump start the process. During Mayor Villaraigosa’s January Neighborhood Council “check-ins,” residents commented on the need for a City services clearinghouse for small businesses.

Los Angeles is in position to capitalize on the Obama Administration’s new “Small Business Jobs Act” as an opportunity to bolster job growth in the small business sector. But to compete for federal small business grants LA will need to develop an effective framework to aid Small Business Development Centers that can implement federal funds quickly and efficiently.

Los Angeles is in position to partner with the local small business network in the delivery of core services, ensuring that project deliveries stay on track and that the city remains in compliance with federal guidelines. But fully 60% of the small businesses in position to deliver services and product indicate that they don’t have access to the capital necessary to bid on the contracts.

Small businesses are hiring at a faster rate than city government and big corporations and LA must support the economic drivers by looking for the small businesses within each industry and look for opportunities to bolster their position.

Supporting LA’s small businesses will yield results in these four ways:

• It will improve upon LA’s implementation shortfalls of the federal stimulus funds and Measure R revenues;
• It will optimize LA’s ability to qualify for federal small business grants;
• It will provide local community organizations an opportunity to qualify for grants and partner with local businesses to provide the services that are no longer offered by the city;
• It will increase the number of new hires within the small business sector, putting Angelenos to work and strengthening our economy.

LA’s small businesses drive our economy and it’s time that the City of LA treat them like giants, made up of the most innovative and creative people in the world, folks who need our help almost as much as we need theirs.

(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 Fails to Cash the Check

CityWatch, Feb 11, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 12

The City of LA is mired in a budget crisis, one that has prompted the mayor to go on a “confidence tour” while the city council conducts triage on city assets and the people of LA brace themselves for the next round of service cuts and fee increases.

While those in control would have us believe that this is all due to the current global economic crisis, it’s not quite true. Quite simply, the City of LA has been mismanaging money through thick and thin, through feast and famine, and even when the funding comes through, LA fails to cash the check.

While city hall attempts to balance the budget on the backs of the people who live here and who operate small businesses here, the real opportunities to pay our staff, repair our infrastructure, support healthy communities and partner with our schools are missed because of simple ineptitude.

1) The City of LA competes with itself for funding. The federal and state government both have Safe Routes to School funding, dispensed on an annual basis and LA allows the Department of Transportation, Public Works, and the CRA to all submit projects that compete with each other. A more efficient solution would be to allow Public Works (a charter department) to take the lead and then to ask the hard question, “Why is there a redundancy of services by the LADOT and the CRA?”

2) The City of LA simply fails to compete for great funding. The Office of Traffic Safety provides funds that can pay for public safety personnel and overtime but LA continues to go after funding for “Watch the Road” billboards as the city council debates furloughs and layoffs.

3) The City of LA qualifies for funding and then simply fails to do the work.

• It’s been years since the city council addressed the fact that 33 of the most dangerous street crossings for schoolchildren had not received safety improvements even though the funds had been in place for years. They blamed city staff.

• It’s been years since I stood on Wilshire Blvd. with LA’s gridlock busting Mayor, Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel, and LADOT GM Rita Robinson to announce the federal funding that was going to be spent on revitalizing and rebuilding Wilshire Blvd., from one end to the other. Since then, the Mayor has lost interest, Greuel is now the City Controller, Robinson retired in frustration and works for LA County, and anyone who travels on Wilshire Blvd. does so at their own risk.

• As of last week, the city council continues to debate Wilshire Blvd., finally deciding to avoid making a decision until they had seen more reports and studies. Meanwhile, LA residents pay an average of $746 per vehicle in repairs per year as the result of damages from potholes and road debris.

4) The City of LA’s failure to complete projects and then invoice the federal and state authorities disqualifies us from funding cycles. City staff engage in the “sister agency” turf war that screams of the inefficiency of having such redundancy. The LADOT has two projects still open under a Cooperative Work Agreement (fund extension) which makes the whole city ineligible for BTA state funds that pay for city projects that improve safety and convenience.

5) The City of LA qualifies for funding but can’t do the math. When the LADOT was at the Transportation Committee to discuss plans for its share of the Metro’s “local return” funds, the numbers being discussed were based on 10% of net instead of 10% of gross. I pointed out the error ($7.3 million over 5 years) and it was corrected.

LA’s City Council has an obligation to protect the city’s assets and to the deliver city services. The Great City priorities of Public Safety, Public works, Public Health, and Public Education depend on an honest, open and transparent accounting of our funds. It continues with the responsible management of our funds and it moves forward with oversight and accountability.

As for today, it’s incumbent on the city council to “cash the check” and put city staff to work repairing our streets and delivering city services.

(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 - Ballot Measure for Measure: City Hall’s cry for help!

CityWatch, Feb 8, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 11

It’s Ballot Measure season in LA and the voter information pamphlet is out, dedicating 90% of its 136 pages to the ten ballot measures that City Hall promises will provide everything from pension reform to clean elections to DWP oversight. If only it were that easy!

On the one hand, it’s unfortunate that the people of LA have to step up to resolve the turf war between the City Council and the DWP, to do the work of those we send to City Hall on our behalf. On the other hand, it’s a powerful moment for the people of LA, one where it becomes abundantly clear that the journey to full accountability and oversight at City Hall is our responsibility.

As for the Ballot Measures:

I’m voting YES on Measure G, which will provide $173 million in savings to the City of LA for every 1000 new cops and firefighters hired. While I’m in favor of pension reform, this measure is no more than a tepid step in the right direction, but it is a step.

I’m voting YES on Measure H, which will restrict campaign contributions from contractors and increase the Matching Funds Trust Fund. Again, I’m in favor of election reform but this measure is only a small step on a long journey.

I’m voting YES on Measure I, establishing the Office of Public Accountability and a Ratepayer Advocate. This is a huge victory for the people from the community who have fought so hard to bring oversight and accountability to the DWP and to City Hall. A small and diluted first step, but an important one.

I’m voting YES on Measure J, requiring the DWP to communicate its budgets and anticipated surplus transfers with the City Council on a timely basis. Responsible management of city assets should be de rigueur but given the turf war that roils in City Hall, it’s apparently now up to the people to demand accountability and oversight.

I’m voting YES on Measure L, providing incremental increases in funding for our libraries. I’m pleased that the people of LA have the opportunity to position libraries as an element of our Great City mandate but know that the work has just begun and that we must work together to prevent “cost recovery” from diminishing any funding increases.

I’m voting YES on Measure O, levying a $1.44 per barrel tax on oil extracted from the estimated 55 known oil fields in the LA area. At less than 2% of the current $80 per barrel, this seems like a minimal and fair amount from the oil companies that are enjoying record levels of profits. In fact, it’s kind of shocking that it took this long or that the tax is so low. (5% proposed for med marijuana but only 1.8% proposed for crude oil?)

I’m voting YES on Measure P, requiring the City of Los Angeles to establish an Emergency Reserve Account within the City’s Reserve Fund. While it’s important to plan for emergencies, it’s unfortunate that it takes a Charter Amendment to ensure fiscal responsibility. Again, this is a small step in what amounts to be a long journey to budgetary responsibility.

I’m voting YES on Measure N, cleaning up Campaign Finance language in Charter to comply with recent court decisions and to ensure that the City of LA is conducting its elections in compliance with the law. I am in favor of election reform but not when it violates the law.

I’m voting YES on Measure Q, again cleaning up Charter language that addresses personnel and employment issues, sometime requiring cumbersome processes that include certifying candidates for jobs that don’t exist. This is a necessary process that should be addressed systemically, not piecemeal, but it is a step in the right direction.

I’m voting NO on Measure M, a tax levied authorized on marijuana collectives while “recognizing that the sale of marijuana is illegal?” LA’s City Council seems hell-bent on incurring legal fees with moves such as this. Declaring something illegal and then taxing it sets a bad precedent. Approaching medical as medicine and cooperatives as non-profits and then taxing them sets a bad precedent. This is an invitation for litigation that LA can’t afford.

The March 8th Ballot Measures are a cry for help from LA’s City Council. Their turf war, their inability to solve the budget crisis, their inability to simply fund libraries (as is their responsibility), has become the people’s work. In essence, these ballot measures are a clear demonstration of the City Council’s legacy of failure.

At the same time, the March 8th Ballot Measures are an opportunity for the people of Los Angeles to take a powerful step in the right direction, one where Pension Reform, DWP oversight, funding commitments and clean elections are the goal that we work toward. With the understanding that, if passed, there is still much oversight to be done … making sure that the ordinances that follow provide the detail the people asked for and that the city’s electeds fulfill the promise these ballot measures intend.

(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.)

CityWatch - Here Are the Rules for an NFL Stadium in the City of Greatness

CityWatch, Feb 4, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 10

Los Image Angeles is one of the best places in the world to live, to work, and to enjoy life. Every day people from around the world travel to LA to experience our greatness and in doing so, they remind us that LA is the city that sets the standards.

From the entertainment industry to the theatre community, from the philharmonic orchestra to the museums, from our rich arts & culture to our championship athletic teams, LA is the Capital of Greatness!

Against that backdrop, it makes sense to ask “Why don’t we have a National Football League team?”

It’s certainly within LA’s vision for greatness to welcome private developers who want to invest in a beautiful state-of-the-art football stadium and contribute to an enhanced convention center as part of the ongoing revitalization of downtown LA.

Accessible by the Metro, convenient to Angelenos from all over the city, adding to the vibrant LA Live attractions, a football stadium could have a tremendous positive impact on Los Angeles.

However, for this scheme to move forward, I contend that these standards must be met:

1. The vision must be clearly articulated. Great cities are built on a foundation of Public Safety, Public Works, Public Health and Public Education. The Farmers Field press conference took place with Mayoral cheerleading while the streets in Van Nuys were collapsing and homes were being evacuated.

LA’s vision for moving forward must be based on resolving the budget crisis, delivering city services, responsible land use policy that protects the people who live here, and great sports and entertainment that enrich the lives of the people who partner in LA’s greatness.

This vision must end the typical “either/or” propositions that the Mayor and the City Council have made de rigueur in these types of proposals. It’s time for the City of LA to commit to win/win proposals and to remember that this is Los Angeles, the NFL wants us, the developers want us, the world wants us. We’re in a powerful position and our responsibility is to set the standard, not lower it.

2. The plan must get very specific very quickly. LA’s Farmers Field is already drawing the same criticism that was leveled at the ‘84 Olympics when in the planning stages. Opponents were fearful of issues such as traffic congestion and financial risk, but LA proved to be a champion.

The ‘84 Olympics in Los Angeles brought out the best in everybody, setting an Olympic standard for operations in business model, in profits, and in traffic congestion relief. LA’s ATSAC went online for the ‘84 Olympics, setting a standard for traffic control.

Peter Ueberroth took to the air in a helicopter on opening day to survey the traffic meltdown and discovered that traffic was actually lighter than usual. This was the first privately financed Olympic Games and it resulted in a surplus of $250 million. The standard has been set.

The plan for LA’s Farmers Field stadium must unfold with a full commitment to meeting stringent environmental impact, social impact, and economic impact standards that actually raise the bar, not lower it. The current murmurings indicate that the sheer size of this project is causing momentum that not only cuts red tape but also cuts through regulatory controls that protect the people of Los Angeles.

The plan for LA’s Farmers Field must start with a standard of excellence, the same excellence that we will expect from the NFL team that plays in Farmers Field, and apply it to every element of the proposed stadium and convention center enhancements.

Now is the time to set a world-class standard for solid investor-driven funding, for sustainable construction and operation, for connecting with the community and enriching the lives of the people of LA. After all, when LA gets it together, LA does great things.

3. The budget must be a real budget, not a press conference budget. While the Mayor and the cheerleading squad were doing cartwheels over the $700 million commitment from Farmers, the fact that the city is penciled in for $350 million in bond guarantees slid right past.

Now is the time for the City of Los Angeles to establish a standard for sound financial behavior, not budgetary window dressing and sound bite accounting. Most of all, this budget must demonstrate clearly that the City of Los Angeles is not contributing to this financial proposition, but is indeed committed to benefiting financially.

This budget must reflect municipal pride in the City of Los Angeles, not desperation. This is Los Angeles! The world needs us, the world wants us! It is an abdication of responsibility if the Mayor and the City Council allow the price of AEG’s admission to drop simply because they get all excited over an autographed football and promises of VIP seats in the Farmers Field Skybox.

The budget must demonstrate clearly that the City of LA will benefit in the profits, that we will come out of the deal as winners, and that we will not in any way, shape or form subsidize the developers of Farmers Field or the future owners of LA’s NFL team.

4. Ultimately, it’s got to work for everybody and we’re already off to a bad start. A deal that has been brewing for two years hits daylight with a ticking clock. This is the City Hall behavior that must stop. Now is the time to firmly establish an open and transparent process that becomes the standard for all that we do. This is not “punting” on a decision, it is simply engaging in the business of running a city by acting like adults, while avoiding the seduction of the Skybox.

The Farmers Field proposal should prevail if it can meet the high standards of excellence that we set. At the same time, it should fail if it relies on variances, subsidies and exceptions.

Ultimately, the future of Farmers Field and LA’s NFL team must be judged based on results, often harsh but always fair. That’s how the game is played.

In many ways, this is a great idea but it comes along at a really bad time. The Mayor and the City Council must focus on city solvency, on the delivery of city services, on responsible land use, on education, on protecting our charter commitments to libraries and parks and arts & culture and the needs of those who are most vulnerable such as our children, our seniors, our disabled.

Through it all, it’s always a bad time to do hard work, but our commitment to greatness demands that we allow the developers and the investors to hit the high LA standards, creating a win-win situation that benefits us all.

It’s important to note that the AEG seduction is in play, that AEG is engaged in an end-run on the starstruck City of LA, heading for Sacramento in an effort to lower the environmental standards and gain inappropriate exceptions.

LA’s Mayor and our City Council have an obligation to serve the people of LA and to protect this city from developers who seek to lower our standards.

That being said, let’s partner in greatness!

(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.)

LA’s CRA turns gold into straw - a view from the street

CityWatch, Feb 1, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 9

When Governor Brown met with Mayor Villaraigosa to debate the future of LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency, the meeting took place in the well-appointed digs of the State Capitol, surrounded by a formidable security force.
When the people in my neighborhood gathered to discuss LA’s CRA, the meeting took place on a busted sidewalk, outside the now empty five-story Gershwin Hotel, across the street from an empty lot surrounded by chain link fencing and graffiti. Security was a courtesy provided by the Department of DIY.

The Governor’s plan to phase out approximately 400 redevelopment agencies throughout the state and to return the revenue stream to local authorities for use in the community has prompted LA’s CRA to scramble in an effort to squirrel away $930 million of public money.

LA’s CRA contends that they have done good work resulting in a catalytic economic and social impact on the community. That may be true in the sense that building a development for $600 million and then selling it for $200 million has a catalytic impact on the CRA’s political cronies.

LA’s CRA argues that the redevelopment projects create jobs and stimulate the economy. That my be true in the sense that bulldozer operators have been busy razing buildings that have fallen victim to the CRA’s “induced-blight” scheme but not for the business owners and employees who have lost jobs through eminent domain.

Jean Ros, founding executive director of the California Budget Project challenges the CRA’s claims saying "The research shows that redevelopment doesn't give us the bang for the buck we need in these economic times."

The Public Policy Institute's study "Subsidizing Redevelopment in California" compared 114 different redevelopment project areas statewide to similar areas without redevelopment. It concluded that redevelopment agencies were not responsible for any net economic growth and that they were being financed at the expense of local schools and public services.

As for local data on the systemic effectiveness of LA’s CRA, Jim Dantana, Deputy to CRA’s CEO Chris Essel, acknowledged that there is no real data to support either side of the argument.

Last week, California State Controller John Chiang launched an audit of 18 redevelopment agencies around the state to get to the bottom of the debate over whether they're "engines of local economic and job growth or are simply scams providing windfalls to political cronies."

While many argue that we simply don’t have the evidence, it’s not quite true. As LA’s City Controller Wendy Greuel warily dips her toe in the audit waters, the simple fact is, she’s late to the game. The audits have been performed, 11 years ago by then-City Controller Rick Tuttle and 5 years ago by then-City Controller Laura Chick.

Meanwhile, on the streets of Hollywood, locals are left with the anecdotal evidence that the CRA’s presence can have a chilling impact on the community, one that results in businesses closing, residents leaving, buildings falling into disrepair, public nuisance abatements and...bulldozers.

The suspicion that the presence of the CRA not only induces blight but actually discourages the investment and participation of long term small business operators was most recently confirmed when Glendale hotel owner Ray Patel refused to sell his property to developer Rick Caruso, only to find himself facing an eminent domain action that will allow the American to expand using his land.

Matt Middlebrook, former Deputy Mayor in LA to then-Mayor Hahn and current frontman for developer Rick Caruso, defended the aggression and explained that Patel had no right to resist the seizure, after all, “Patel (hotel owner) knew a decade ago that he was buying a business inside a redevelopment zone. By that time, the city had already used eminent domain to push out small Glendale property owners and make way for other private owners.”

That’s the skewed logic at the core of LA’s “pennies on the dollar” scheme, one where the CRA spends the public’s dollars on projects that wouldn’t pass muster in the private sector, then sells them to insiders for pennies.

LA’s CRA built the Hollywood & Highland Center for $600 million and then sold it to the CIM Group for $200 million. The City of LA then ponied up an additional $30 million to remodel the Kodak Theatre for the CIM in a move that Curbed LA referred to as “Send in the Clowns!”
Meanwhile, as Hollywood’s Gershwin Hotel continues to decay, the CIM Group stands in the wings with a bag of pennies, ready to feed at the public trough on the land and property that has been secured with our dollars, all while the local children stare through chain link fencing at a building that has more broken windows every day, at a neighborhood that continues to suffer. If only the CRA would get out of the way.

(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 - Succession strategies

CityWatch, Jan 28, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 8

My column in CityWatch last week announcing the retirement of Bill Robertson, Director of the Bureau of Streets Services, drew a lot of comments supporting the notion that his departure would be a great loss to the City of LA but with an interesting twist.

Testimonials from the community included EB from Sunland Tujunga, who wrote:

“Bill Robertson is all that Stephen Box says he is and more. I had the privilege of working with Bill on a local project. He and his staff were efficient, involved, knowledgeable, thoughtful and creative.

Shortly after the Sunland Tujunga NC was established, Bill came personally to our Land Use Committee meeting to discuss how we were going to handle the repairs in our sadly deteriorating neighborhood roadways.

I attended one of his workshops on "How to handle LA's sidewalks or the lack of them! Once again, he proved how logical and practical he is.

I would be delighted to stump for him if he would run for Mayor.”

Testimonials from the inside included this comment from JF who wrote:

I want to congratulate you for the wonderful article you wrote about Bill Robertson. I am a friend of his and your comments were right on.

He will be missed but thankfully he has two very talented assistant directors that can continue to run the Bureau of Street Services as best as possible in these difficult times.

Typical retirement accolades review the past and shower praise on performance but those who know Bill Robertson reflected a unique perspective, one that falls into the “He’s so good, you won’t know he’s gone!”

In looking back over the last few months, I realized that Robertson had been uncharacteristically missing from some key meetings, a strategy that I now realize was part of his leadership development strategy.

At the Mayor’s Summit in August, I sat next to Nazario Sauceda in a room filled with Department Managers and assumed that Robertson’s absence was due to schedule conflicts but I now realize that Robertson was busy replacing himself.

At the last meeting I attended at the Bureau of Street Services, I was greeted at the door by Robertson who then disappeared and left Sauceda and Ron Olive in charge. Again I attributed it to a scheduling conflict but now I see that Robertson was planning for the future.

Again in December, the Bureau of Street Services held a meeting in Hollywood, the type of meeting that Robertson is famous for attending, but he was nowhere to be seen. In hindsight, I now realize that his influence was even greater than his presence.

USC’s School of Public Policy profiled Robertson a few years ago and declared him an “Exemplar of Politics and Public Management” noting his commitment to relationships in the community, within the department, and within City Hall.

They also noted that his military training has resulted in a commitment to creating an organization that continues functioning smoothly and without interruption, even if the leader falls.

“If I’m gone tomorrow,” Robertson is quoted as reflecting, “Nazario will step into my office, and nobody would know I was there.”

Robertson has been right about a lot of things but he’s wrong about this. The people of LA will definitely know he was there! The best way to honor his investment in the future of LA is to work together to develop Citywide succession strategies that move LA forward.

(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 - Blighted Land Meets Sleight of Hand

CityWatch, Jan 25, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 7

LA’s Alliance of Neighborhood Councils celebrated its 10th anniversary with a rare public viewing of California’s latest addition to the endangered species list, LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). (Video links 1 and video link 2).

Jim Dantona, Chief Deputy to the CEO of LA’s CRA, gave a quick overview of Governor Brown’s plan to dismantle the state’s redevelopment agencies, freeing up the incremental tax revenue and returning it to local municipalities for police, fire, hospitals and schools.

Dantona is nothing if not a charming diplomat but he was fighting an uphill battle that started off on soft sand as he cast dispersions on the Governor’s plan by asking “Can you believe the state?”

Ziggy Kruse, Executive Producer of HNN-TV, pointed out that it’s even harder to believe the CRA, after last week’s Brown Act violating Special Meeting that served a simple goal, to move almost a billion dollars in CRA funds into safe pockets. “How can you engage in a process that excludes the public and expect us to trust you?”

Dantona explained that the CRA staff believed that the state was moving quickly so they moved even quicker to protect the CRA funds. This “punch-first” strategy was referred to by some in the audience as the “unlawful conveyance of funds” and demonstrates the lose-lose behavior of a city that too often works against partners rather than with them.

Dantona is to be commended for performing what he refers to as “piñata” work, and the audience responded by revealing that in many of the city’s 31 CRA project areas, it’s the community that feels like it’s being treated like a piñata.

During the Q & A session, Barbara Broide, President of Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowners Association, pointed out that the CRA’s habit of allowing CRA project developers to include significant billboard placement in proposed projects in order to augment revenues is little more than promoting a “Blight for Blight” scheme. The audience agreed. She urged the CRA to be proactive in halting such practices which advance projects that otherwise would likely not "pencil out" without the billboards and their blight.

Bob Blue, former Chair of the Hollywood Studio District NC, acknowledged the catalytic impact of projects such as Hollywood & Highland but pointed out that building a $600 million project that then sells for $200 million can hardly be construed as anything more than a hand out for developers. Blue argued that if the CRA is responsible for the losses, it should at least share in the profits of any victories. The audience agreed.

Mary Garcia, President of Mid-Town North Hollywood Neighborhood Council, questioned the need to have the CRA stay in a neighborhood for so long, pointing at the Laurel Plaza as an example of blight that worsened with the CRA’s help. It was argued that the CRA overstays its welcome by decades and actually discourages potential catalytic impact from non-CRA developers. The audience agreed.

Many expressed their belief that many projects undertaken by the CRA with significant public investment would have been built without those investments. While some spoke in support of a number of smaller projects underway with CRA support, the overwhelming sentiment of those present was that the Governor's proposal to take a significant portion of CRA funds away from the agencies in order to fund state-mandated programs and services is a sound approach in this time of unprecedented budget crisis.

While the Governor works at the state level, local community activists were circulating draft motions for neighborhood councils in Los Angeles, calling on local support for a call to dismantle Community Redevelopment Agencies and to redirect the incremental tax revenue back to local communities.

As the City of LA engages in a battle with the State of California over a billion dollars of the public’s money, the CRA’s spokesperson acknowledged that there is no data to demonstrate the effectiveness or economic impact of the redevelopment agency concept.

The City of LA’s CRA assault on the people of LA begins with simple violations of process and continues to the siege of communities that lasts for decades.

Any attempts to move forward must be supported by real data, not simple anecdotal evidence, and the people of LA must come first with a process that is participatory and supported by honest and open accounting.

The City of LA’s credibility has been destroyed by stalled projects that blight communities, approvals of projects to politically connected developers of dubious performance history. As developers return to the trough for additional funds to complete projects already approved and funded, the CRA’s scramble to divert funds from essential programs and services is a self imposed death blow.

The City of LA’s ability to weather the current fiscal crisis depends on its credibility. The world is watching, the financial community is preparing for triage, and the people who call LA home have been betrayed. It is imperative that the City of LA put the people of LA first by putting our money where it belongs, in our communities.

(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.) Video credits: Monica Harmon- “Monica’s Digest”

CityWatchLA - Seeing Through the CRA’s Fog of War

CityWatch, Jan 21, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 6

The CRA’s announcement of a “Special Meeting” was the battle cry and the subsequent barrage of agendas, supplemental agendas, and revised supplemental agendas were the weapons in the ongoing war of City Hall vs. the People of Los Angeles.

Last week’s announcement by Governor Brown that he intended to return locally generated tax revenue to local municipalities drew an aggressive response from the City of LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency, demonstrating once again LA’s knack for alienating potential allies rather that looking for common ground.

At issue was Brown’s announcement that he wanted to close nearly 400 municipal redevelopment agencies and return nearly $5 billion in locally collected tax revenue to the general funds of the local communities.

Somehow the traditional cut-and-paste media was only able to reformat CRA press releases and Browns effort was referred to as a “hand-out” that would benefit...gulp...general fund support for police, fire, health and education.

The Downtown News went so far as to say “Brown’s proposal would skim (emphasis mine) $1.7 billion from new tax increment generated by redevelopment agencies across the state...”

Providing balance, LA Weekly was able to discern between mythology and reality, calling out LA’s City Hall leadership for jumping into the Fog of War fray that is standard operating procedure when it comes to moving funds from one pocket to the other, all while claiming that the city is broke.

Just last year, budget advocates were confronted with the City of LA’s $450 million budget deficit at the same time that the CRA/LA was holding a $480 million surplus.

Now that the State of California and the City of LA have an opportunity to connect, to work together to ensure that our budget is balanced and that our Public Safety, Public Works, Public Health, and Public Education commitments are met, the City of LA has taken the money and run.

In many ways the subject is simple, the money comes from the local community, it belongs to the local community, and it must serve the local community.

As the City of LA discusses cutting police and fire and libraries and maintenance of infrastructure, it’s imperative that the process of bringing the CRA into the city family be open and transparent, something that isn’t happening.

The people of Los Angeles will have a great opportunity to discuss the CRA, Brown’s plan for redevelopment agencies, the City of LA’s budget and our financial future at Saturday’s Alliance of Neighborhood Councils meeting.

Vince Bertoni, Deputy Director of Planning, Cary Brazeman, founder of LA Neighbors United and Jim Dantona, Chief Deputy to Chris Essel, CEO of the Community Redevelopment Agency are headlining the Alliance’s 10th Anniversary meeting at the Los Angeles City College in East Hollywood. The meeting is Saturday, January 22nd at 9:30 at the LA City College Faculty Lounge. It’s open, it’s transparent, and it’s your opportunity to engage in the future of our communities.

(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 - 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 )

CityWatchLA - The Politics of Public Administration

‘Fed Up’ Streets Chief Bill Robertson Resigns: “It’s My Time”
LA LOSES ONE OF THE GREAT ONES

CityWatch, Jan 18, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 5

The bumpy road through LA’s budget crisis just took a turn for the worse as William Robertson, Director of LA’s The Bureau of Street Services, tendered his resignation with the simple explanation “It’s my time.”

Robertson’s announcement is certain to fuel speculation that “He’s fed up with it all!” and he conceded “Yes, I am fed up with it all. But I was planning to leave last year and I stayed on to take my department through the reorganization. Now, it really is my time.”

I’ve worked with Bill on three different levels and it’s from that perspective that I offer my opinion that his departure will be a tremendous loss to the City of LA within Public Works, within the larger LA community, and within City Hall.

The City of Los Angeles has the largest roadway network in the nation which in turn has the largest roadway network in the world. LA is a full generation behind schedule in roadway infrastructure investment resulting in a city that leads the nation in deteriorated road conditions. Research estimates that fully 64% of LA's streets are in poor condition, causing LA residents to pay an average of $746 per vehicle in repairs per year as the result of damages from potholes and road debris.

Against this backdrop of deterioration and disrepair, Robertson has demonstrated a knack for setting maximum performance standards while City Hall looks for the minimum acceptable performance. Some suggest that his military background is the foundation for a management style that is quick to size up assets, focus on the objective, collect data, measure performance, and deliver on his commitments.

LA’s budget cuts have crushed departmental commitments to the delivery of city services and the cost of raw product is rapidly escalating. Robertson responded by implementing a “Cold In-Place Recycling” strategy that resurfaces streets using a single huge piece of equipment that literally eats the street, recycling the materials, leaving a resurfaced street behind.

Less invasive to the community, 25 percent to 35 percent more efficient than conventional technologies, one would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and invested in more machines. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s press conference solutions such as “Operation Pothole” and “Operation Smooth Ride” promote the fantasy that calls to 311 are something more than outrage measurements and schemes to limit city liability to only those potholes on record.

Robertson responded by implementing a long-term sophisticated data collection strategy that inventories all 69,000 pavement sections in the City of LA using an automated vehicle equipped with a computerized work station. It collects digital imagery and uses lasers to capture roadway roughness and rutting data and then the "pavement distress data" is used to prioritize the different layers of service, from emergency repairs to slurry seals to maintenance overlays to resurfacing to reconstruction.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and invested in more machines. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s neighborhood council system was created over a decade ago and department heads still grapple with the notion that the public wants to participate with a more responsive government, monitoring city services and offering advice on the budget. Robertson seized the opportunity to connect with the community, demonstrating a respect for the people of LA and a serious commitment to empowerment.

From educating the public with his “Professor Pothole” campaign to empowering communities with 87 local funding pools, his commitment to civic engagement is unrivaled.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and supported his commitment to sharing power with the public. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s bureaucratic system is Byzantine and insiders often seek refuge by deferring the public in order to avoid responsibility or liability. Robertson revealed his solution to this problem at a Silver Lake Neighborhood Council Transportation Committee meeting several years ago when he showed up with both senior and lower-level staff in tow. He explained “When I speak, they back me up. When they speak, I back them up. That’s a promise I can make because I lead by example and this is how they learn.”

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and reproduced his strategy for creating a department that moves quickly and with accountability. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

Last year’s City Council budget hearings consisted of every single city department coming before the Budget Committee to defend their budget against the CAO’s recommended cuts. Robertson showed up with a plan for achieving the proposed budget cuts while still delivering city services and keeping his department intact.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and put him in charge of departmental budget efficiencies and performance. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s departments operate as little fiefdoms, fiercely guarding staffing and budgets, maintaining independence and autonomy, avoiding conflict and responsibility, and sometimes competing with others within the city family. Robertson has a track record for crossing jurisdictional lines in order to deliver on his commitment to doing what’s in the best interest of the city, even if it’s not his immediate departmental responsibility.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and put him in charge of silo busting. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

Bill Robertson is unique in his ability to balance politics with public administration, always avoiding the “either/or” solutions that are so prevalent in our community.

He has demonstrated a knack for navigating City Hall, for training strong leaders, and for working with the people of Los Angeles, not against them.

Through it all, he maintained his commitment to the Bureau of Street Services and to implementing innovations and technology, all while creating an organization that benefits those within, those in the community, and those at City Hall.

Acknowledging that LA’s budget crisis, impending service cuts, sale of assets, threats of layoffs and battle with the state over redevelopment funds might prompt people to speculate that he was fed up with it all, Robertson conceded “It’s true, I’m fed up.”

Bill Robertson was a rare city manager, one who did not need a City Charter to tell him that the people of Los Angeles were the priority.

He did not need an org chart to tell him that when trees are falling down after a storm and endangering life and property, professional tree trimmers should get busy trimming trees without regard to departmental turf.

He didn’t need a Chief Administrative Officer to tell him that in times of budget crisis it is imperative to plan for cuts while committing to delivering city services.

Bill will be missed and his departure is a great loss to the City of LA. He was an inspiration to me. Now, more than ever, we need more people like him in City Hall. It’s LA’s time!

(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 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 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 - More Politics of Scarcity

CityWatch, Jan 11, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 3

Induced demand is a powerful political weapon and the people of Los Angeles are subjected to “either/or” proposals with such regularity that the current debate over the sale of LA’s parking assets is just another chapter in the ongoing saga of the impending budget crisis.

As the streets of Los Angeles collapse and another Operation Pothole gets underway, City Hall is quietly moving to sell off income producing fixed assets, this time positioning the “either/or” scenario as “either we layoff city employees or we sell off parking assets.”

OMG!

The City of LA has been moving in this direction for years, ample time to conduct an open and transparent discussion of the proposed sale of city assets. Now we find ourselves racing against the ticking clock (another powerful negotiating tool!) and the City Council is rushing to make a decision while the public finds itself on the sidelines.

Tick, tick, tick!

It seems like yesterday that the people of Los Angeles were slammed with the “9% phone tax” ballot measure, positioned as a reduction of 10% from the then illegal fee that was being collected by the city but also positioned as necessary if the city was to continue to offer the same great service. All was forgiven and the city moved on...towards the edge of the budget crisis cliff. The law was broken but the people forgot.

It seems like yesterday that the people of Los Angeles were offered the “either/or” option of paying more for trash collection or suffering a shortage in public safety staffing. The people of LA bought into the “10,000 Police Officers on the streets of LA” mandate and the trash fees went up but the city of LA was in the middle of a budget crisis and the money was used elsewhere. Meanwhile, police officers are moving from patrol duties to clerking responsibilities, all in an effort to replace furloughed and laid-off civilian employees. The promise was broken but the people forgot.

It seems like yesterday that the people of Los Angeles were grappling with closed libraries, closed fire stations, fee increases, permit increases, shuttered cultural centers, loss of incremental tax revenue, strained infrastructure, and restricted delivery of city services.

Wait! It was yesterday! And it’s still happening today! How quickly we forget!

Through it all, the City Council gets the advice, counsel and support of the City Attorney while the people of Los Angeles get...well...a great view of the proceedings from Channel 35 and the option of dropping by council chambers for a moment or two of public comment.

Typically, in significant transactions between two or more parties, skilled representatives are at the table to advise their clients on the deal, the options and the ramifications of potential decisions.

In Los Angeles, the City Attorney (CA) is busy working more than one side of the table, advising the City Council, advising the CAO, advising the Department of Recreation and Parks, interrupting only long enough to remind the people of Los Angeles that the CA can’t offer advice or support to the residents, “After all, the people of LA aren’t the CA’s client.”

The current brouhaha over the sale of LA’s parking assets is simply another in a long series of one-sided, induced-demand, fire-sale crisis solutions that is fed to the people of Los Angeles who are out-gunned, under-represented, and over-burdened. That must change!

Somehow those deliberating over the fire sale of city assets as a short term solution to a long term problem have missed the successes of neighboring communities where parking income has been leveraged into community enhancements and streetscape improvements, improving the quality of life in their neighborhoods.

Well-managed parking assets combined with park-once valet options stimulate the economy, improve employment opportunities, and result in safer streets, all as a result of embracing parking revenue, not jettisoning it off as a short-term solution to a long-term problem.

While the complexities of parking asset development, funding, construction, operations and management are handled by the many city departments involved in representing the people of LA, one thing is certain; it must be conducted with greater foresight, transparency, accountability, and results.

From Orange County to Mammoth Lakes to the City of Bell, the arrogance of governance without oversight has demonstrated its fatal sting. Now is the time for the people of Los Angeles to demand representation and oversight, starting with a City Prosecutor with enforcement authority.

(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 - 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 - Oversight and Accountability requires a City Prosecutor with Enforcement Authority

CityWatch, Jan 4, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 1

Angelenos in pursuit of oversight reform are in the midst of an "all or nothing" battle that starts with the upcoming opportunity to create of a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and establish the Office of Public Accountability. (OPA) But both efforts will be for naught if they are not supported with significant Commission Reform and the establishment of a City Prosecutor.

It was increasing public outrage over LA's Department of Water & Power cavalier behavior that stirred a grass roots battle to establish a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) with oversight authority in order to ensure open review of the DWP's operations, finances, and management.

Through it all, public distrust of what Jack Humpreville refers to as "the DWP’s politically appointed Board of Commissioners, its overly politicized and less than candid executive management, and the Mayor and his evasive staff" continued to grow.

It was an internecine struggle over LA's budget crisis that led to a family feud between the DWP, the City Council, and the Mayor's Office. The residents of Los Angeles watched and listened to threats of bankruptcy, renewed layoffs, increasing flotsam and jetsam, ongoing cuts to city services, and the impending sale of city assets.

Through it all, public distrust of what Richard Lee Abrams refers to as "lots of emotional hysteria about lost services, but total silence about available funds" left the Mayor and City Council struggling to explain how a large LA deficit matched by a larger CRA surplus still results in a budget deficit that requires a fire sale of city assets.

The resulting groundswell of grassroots support for greater oversight of the DWP, the City's budget process, and the machinations of LA's Commissions and Boards stirred a stampede as the DWP Commission, the City Council, and the Mayor's office all got in the game.

As the deadline for March 8, 2011 ballot measure drew closer, there were competing proposals for a Ratepayers Advocate, an Inspector General, and an Office of Public Accountability. The DWP's union entered the fray, management and commission positions changed hands, and by the time the City Council was done, the proposed ballot measure had been watered down, resulting in reduced authority and narrow jurisdiction.

While the DWP Reform Panel originally called for charter amendments authorizing a well funded, empowered, and truly independent Ratepayers Advocate as well as an Inspector General, the resulting ballot measure no longer include the authorization of City Council to remove the DWP General Manager and any Commissioner with a two-thirds vote. The Office of Public Accountability will be limited to the review of water and power rates and will rely on the City Council and Mayor to pass ordinances to insure the thorough review and analysis of DWP’s $60 billion strategic plan and its operations, finances, and management.

Still, progress is admirable. It is rewarding and it is encouraging. But the establishment of a Ratepayers Advocate supported by the Office of Public Accountability is a hollow and symbolic gesture unless they are supported by subsequent ballot measures that reform the Commission process and establish a City Prosecutor.

All four elements must exist or the City of LA will have oversight reform that consists of a dog that is "all bark and no bite." The last thing LA needs now is oversight reform that consists of more audits and advice with no authority or mandate to enforce the law.

Those involved in neighborhood councils have learned the hard way that the City Attorney has a client, it's the City of Los Angeles. NC Boardmembers can call the CA's office for advice but not for support if their complaint is with the City of Los Angeles, that's when the public finds itself without representation.

The City Attorney owes fiduciary duties to the City's employees and its elected officials and that prohibits the City Attorney from taking any action against the interests of those people. The City Attorney may not even conduct an investigation that might reveal bad behavior by one of his clients, and if he does get such in formation during an investigation, he must hold it confidential.

Municipal authorities typically address this situation by having two separate offices. The County of Los Angeles has the District Attorney who owes no duty to the County Board of Supervisors while the County Counsel serves the Board and the Supervisors themselves.

In similar fashion, the City of Los Angeles needs two separate offices, one for the City Attorney and one for the City Prosecutor. The City Prosecutor would prosecute all the crimes which the City Attorney now prosecutes plus its jurisdiction would be expanded to cover felonies and grand jury investigations into City Hall.

The City Charter would need to clarify jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor and provide for felony investigations that involve the City of Los Angeles. Cities, counties, states and the feds can have concurrent jurisdiction, thus allowing the City Prosecutor to investigate and/or prosecute cases which involve or may involve the City, a City agency, or a City official. This must take place without divesting felony jurisdiction from the District Attorney or the State Attorney General.

As the March 8, 2011 election approaches and the ballot measure establishing a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accountability (OPA) get the spotlight, it is important to remember that oversight and accountability mean little, if anything at all, without enforcement authority and a mandate for prosecution.

2010 was a great year for the grassroots advocates who fought so hard to bring the issues of open and transparent governance into the marketplace of ideas. Progress was made but the impending success will be hollow if we do not continue the journey.

2011 is the year in which we can work together to move forward from awareness and into the arena of performance and accountability, supported by a City Prosecutor that has the budget, the professional expertise, the legal clout and the mandate to do a meaningful job.

(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.)