“Mr. Brown” Takes His Act to City Hall

RETHINKING LA - This past Tuesday, “Mr. Brown” headed over to LA’s City Hall in order to attend the City Council’s regularly scheduled public meeting. He never made it.

Mr. Brown knew that parking opportunities downtown were expensive and limited so he took the Metro, arriving at the Civic Center station and walking east, pausing to admire the impressive architecture of the Times building, the LAPD Headquarters, and the Caltrans building.

As Mr. Brown followed his map to 200 N. Spring Street, he turned north and stood across the street from City Hall, a building so awe inspiring, he found himself simply standing and looking up at the world’s tallest base isolated structure. This was were he committed his first mistake of the day.

Mr. Brown crossed the street, using a crosswalk decorated with the LA City Seal and a peace dove, and walked up the granite steps, through the huge arches and into the Romanesque forecourt.

He paused to read the inscription over the doorway, “Righteousness Exalteth a People,” and emboldened by the words of Solomon he continued walking toward the front door of LA’s City Hall.

Again he paused, this time to examine the bronze bas relief carvings that memorialize half a dozen key events in LA’s history, including one with Commodore Robert Field Stockton and Major John Charles Fremont saluting the flag in “American Occupation 1846.”

Mr. Brown opened the door and took a couple of steps, pausing to allow his eyes to adjust to the sudden shift from the sunlight to the dimly lit atrium. He was greeted by a man in uniform, complete with a badge and a gun, who stood in his way.

“You can’t come in here.” said the uniformed greeter.

“I’m here to attend a public meeting.” explained Mr. Brown.

“You have to exit, go around the building, and enter through the back of the building. The front entrance is only for City of LA staff and officials.” said the doorman as if he was guarding LA’s most exclusive club.

“But I’m a member of the public here to attend a public meeting.” repeated Mr. Brown.

“Back up, go around the building, and use the back door.” repeated the officer from LA’s Office of Public Safety, this time a tad more gruffly than the first time.

Mr. Brown exited and circled the building, and entered through the back door where he was greeted by a full contingent of OPS officers who were operating screening equipment.

He placed his personal belongings on the conveyor belt and waited while a little old man was repeatedly sent through the screening machine, each time eliciting a beep that prompted the OPS officer to repeat the instruction “remove all metal objects.” The little old man would shift his cane from one hand to the other as he patted his pockets and searched for the offending security violation, coming up empty each time.

Eventually, the OPS officer and his partner noticed that the little old man was wearing suspenders, an oversight that prompted them to give him a lecture on the need to declare his suspenders in the future.

Mr. Brown was screened with no problems, and as he followed the little old man with the cane, another OPS officer bellowed “Come back here, I need to see your ID.”

“I’m here to attend a public meeting.” explained Mr. Brown.

“I need to see your ID.” repeated the OPS officer from behind the counter.

“Am I being detained?” asked Mr. Brown.

“No, you just need to show me your ID so I can give you this sticker.” said the OPS officer who was responsible for a clipboard filled with names and a sheet of stickers.

“Then you don’t need my ID, I’m here to attend a public meeting.”

“Oh!” said the OPS officer, “You’re using the Brown Act. You need to tell me that you’re using the Brown Act.”

“Actually, there are no magic words or passwords or special phrases needed in order to attend a public meeting under the Brown Act,” explained Mr. Brown, “One does not need to know the specifics of the Brown Act in order to be covered by the Brown Act. I’m here to attend a public meeting, you know it is covered by the Brown Act, and it is your legal obligation and sworn duty to allow me to attend without demanding ID.”

“Why are you giving me a hard time?” the OPS officer said, apparently a rhetorical question that was certainly beneath her role as a Sergeant with LA’s Office of Public Safety.

“Actually, it is you who is giving a member of the public a hard time,’ responded Mr. Brown, “first by ‘demanding’ identification from a member of the public who is simply trying to attend a public meeting and then by requiring a ‘magic phrase’ in order to invoke the Brown Act. You’re not only giving me a hard time, you’re committing a misdemeanor in the presence of law enforcement officers.”

Mr. Brown took his sticker from Sgt. “M” and began to walk toward the elevators when he thought twice and decided to talk to a supervisor. He asked a different OPS officer (budget constraints be damned, there were six OPS officers in the lobby of City Hall) and a radio request went out for the Watch Commander.

The Lieutenant on duty sent over a Sergeant, a large man who would definitely benefit from a few days in charm school. His disdain for Mr. Brown was palpable and his interest in the Brown Act guarantees was minimal, if any existed at all.

“I’m sure that if we were doing something wrong, the City Attorney would tell us.” Sgt. “L” explained, turning as if his confidence in the status quo was sufficient to end the conversation.

“But your officers seem to think that a demand for ID is acceptable and it isn’t.” explained Mr. Brown. “Further, they seem to think that there is a Brown Act password that must be exercised in order to invoke the Brown Act. That’s also not true.

“I’ not sure of any of the details of the Brown Act,’ Sgt. “L” explained, casting doubts on the efficacy of OPS supervision, “But the City Attorney tells us what to do and we do it. I’m sure if the City Attorney has a policy, it’s a legal policy.”

Mr. Brown realized that conversation with Sgt. “L” was going nowhere so he asked if he could file a complaint. Sgt ”L” said he had to go to his car for the form, a trip that took 20 minutes, resulting in the return of an empty-handed Sgt “L” who explained that he would have to go to Headquarters for the form. (OPS HQ is across the street)

In light of the time it took Sgt. “L” to simply get to his car which was parked at the curb, Mr. Brown considered how long it would take Sgt. “L” to actually cross the street and chose to visit OPS HQ himself. He crossed the street, entered the underground mall and found the OPS HQ, just past the Togo’s and to the right.

The OPS Watch Commander listened attentively with just a hint of fatigue and acknowledged that the City Attorney had performed Brown Act training, that the OPS request for ID is just a request, that there is no “magic phrase” that invokes the Brown Act, and that the City Attorney had distributed training materials to the OPS officers.

Mr. Brown asked for a copy of the Brown Act training materials, a request that brought a look of pain to the Watch Commander’s face. He shuffled a few stacks of documents and asked a Sergeant at the front desk if there was a copy of the Brown Act training procedures anywhere in the office. There was none.

After a bit of a search, he offered a substitute, a one-inch thick OPS Policies and Procedures Manual, complete with bright red cover that surely signified its importance.

Mr. Brown scanned through the manual and quickly located the section of the manual that addressed visitors who “either do no (sic) have identification or refuse to present identification upon request. Officers should not deny access to any person as long as they have been properly screened and their bags inspected (Refer to Chapter 6 Section XX-D).”

It was immediately apparent that nobody had actually read the manual because the manual directed the reader to Chapter 6 Section XX-D that is entitled “Dangerous Animal Escape and Response.”

This explains the look on the face of Sgt. “L” as he parked his car curbside and entered LA’s City Hall. He was apparently prepared for an encounter with a “Dangerous Animal Escape.”

While the line between “members of the public” and “dangerous animal escape” may be extremely thin in the eyes of City Hall’s security detail, California’s Brown Act still prevails and the public has the right to attend public meetings without fear of being treed, tranquilized, or chased by Animal Control.

Mr. Brown took the time to point out the typos in the OPS Manual, including the fact that OPS officers are told to give a Blue sticker to people who show their ID and Red stickers to the other members of the public, then offering contradictory instructions.

First “Officers who then observe a person wearing a red visitor badge should be cognizant of the reasons why it was issued.”

Then “However, officers should not treat the wearer with any unwarranted suspicion.”

The OPS Manual concludes by instructing “Officer must be mindful that City Hall is a public building, and therefore balance the duty to provide for the safety of the occupants with the duty to protect the rights of those wishing to attend public meetings.

Mr. Brown thanked the Watch Commander for his time and sent a request to the City Attorney for a copy of the Brown Act training materials that are used to instruct the Office of Public Safety officers. The request has so far been ignored.

As for the City Council meeting that Mr. Brown wanted to attend, he returned to City Hall but the doors to Council Chambers were locked and LA’s part-time City Council was gone for the day.

Mr. Brown has been taken to task by those who contend that asking for ID at the front counter of City Hall is such a small injustice, one that doesn’t warrant such a stubborn demand for adherence to the Brown Act.

Mr. Brown explains “If the City of LA doesn’t know enough about the Brown Act to allow the public to simply enter the building legally, then it is certain they are not aware of the other provisions of the Brown Act such as proper notification, informative agendas, making materials available to the public, and allowing appropriate public comment.”

It has been 59 years since the Ralph M. Brown Act was passed by the California State Legislature and it guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.

When the Brown Act was originally introduced, the Sacramento Bee wrote “A law to prohibit secret meetings of official bodies, save under the most exceptional circumstances, should not be necessary. Public officers above all other persons should be imbued with the truth that their business is the public’s business and they should be the last to tolerate any attempt to keep the people from being fully informed as to what is going on in official agencies. Unfortunately, however, that is not always the case. Instances are many in which officials have contrived, deliberately and shamefully, to operate in a vacuum of secrecy.”

Those words are as true now as they have ever been.

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

If Gates Are Illegal, Only Criminals Will Live in Gated Communities

CityWatch, Oct 28, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 86

RETHINKING LA - The City of LA’s recent decision to close a small Hollywood Hills cul-de-sac and to allow the residents to build a locked gate that excludes the public but provides access to the residents is under attack as a violation of state law.

Solar Drive is a small road that dead-ends above Runyon Canyon, popular to tourists in search of a great view and to hikers in pursuit of a less congested route to the popular canyon trails.

Residents have long complained about traffic and congestion but the recent move to close Solar Drive to the public was attributed to “loitering, littering, smoking and drinking” and the recent City Council approved solution was to allow the residents to build a gate that the Solar Drive residents operated and maintained.

Citizens Coalition of Los Angeles (CC-LA) and Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning (H.E.L.P.) have both stepped into the fray with requests to “rectify the unlawful closure of Streets north of Franklin Avenue in Hollywood.”

Their lawyer has submitted a demand to City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, [link] pointing to the CA’s legal obligation to serve his client, the City of LA, with sound legal advice that includes warning the City Council of the illegal nature of the street closure and the resulting liability to both the city and the residents of Solar Drive.

The legal argument against street closures is built on a foundation that holds “the right to travel is based on the inalienable and constitutional right to Liberty. A restriction on travel is a restriction of Liberty. Thus, the state of California finds travel on public roads, including public stairs, sidewalk, cul de sacs, to be a fundamental right.”

The Hollywood Hills area is no stranger to debates over public access vs. public safety and periodically attempts are made to close streets with gates or to close stairways that connect neighborhoods.

The Whitley Heights Civic Association went to the City Council in 1985 for permission to build gates that would keep the public out of their neighborhood. They built the gates but Citizens Against Gated Enclaves (CAGE) sued them and prevailed in Superior Court and then again in the Appellate court, bringing the decade-long battle to an end with the removal of the gates.

The state of California’s Uniformity Code (CVC 21) limits the authority of local municipalities and states “no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on the matters covered by this code unless expressly authorized herein.”

The rules governing the closure of streets are quite specific and state “local authorities may not place gates or other selective devices on any street which deny or restrict the access of certain members of the public to the street, while permitting others unrestricted access to the street.”

The fact that locals have complained of criminal activity in the area as justification for the restriction of the public from Solar Drive falls far short of the legal minimum and is unsupported by the City Council motion that referred to “loitering, littering, drinking, and smoking” as the security issues.

Nuisance misdemeanors hardly qualify as “serious and criminal activity” nor do they justify a violation of state law by the City of LA and the residents of Solar Drive. “Inconvenience, disturbing the peace, and potential problems” fail to qualify as conditions that would satisfy the CVC 21101.4 street closure conditions.

There are some that consider the Solar Drive street closure to be the opening move, one that sets up more street closures that will address the complaints of residents throughout the Hollywood Hills.

Recent community meetings have addressed the increasing congestion in the hills caused by tourists in search of the Hollywood Sign and hikers in pursuit of hilltop trails, all to the dismay of the residents who moved to the Hollywood Hills to get away from the crowd.

As the grumbling escalates and tensions increase and the call for street closures continue, the impact of the Solar Drive gate will be powerful and will establish precedent that can be used in other areas to close cul de sacs and stairways, a situation that many consider not only unacceptable but illegal.

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



Tags: Hollywood Hills, Solar Drive, Solar Drive Gate, Los Angeles, gated communities, street closures, City Council, Runyon Canyon, City Attorney, Carmen Trutanich, California Uniformity Code

LA’s Apron Parking Decision: More Questions Than Answers

CityWatch, Oct 25, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 85

RETHINKING LA - In an all-too-common demonstration of synchronized confusion, the City Attorney’s office has directed the LADOT to suspend enforcement of the city’s Apron Parking ban, reversing its prior position and leaving more unanswered questions in its wake.

For those people who have been cited but have not yet resolved their citations for violating the City Attorney’s creative interpretation of the “parkway parking” ban, do they still have to pay their tickets for an offense that is no longer offensive?

For those people who have been cited but did not pay their citations, triggering late fees and penalties, does the moratorium apply to the collection activities that include credit reporting and legal action?

For those people who park parallel to the curb line, in their driveway but without blocking the sidewalk or the travel lane in the street, are they also included in the moratorium?

For those people who have received citations for apron parking and who have paid their $58 tickets, are those debts forgiven and are they entitled to a refund?

The City Council is to be commended for acting decisively to address the debate over Apron Parking with a resolution to suspend enforcement while the definitions are debated and clarified. This allows residents (who are aware of the action) to use valuable real estate in congested neighborhoods to park vehicles, all while leaving the sidewalks open and clear for pedestrians.

Of course the term “decisively” in this case actually amounts to allowing the debate to roll along for years until it reached a crisis point that saw community members take to the streets with picket signs, calling for their council representative to act with resolve.

At issue is the practice of parking personal vehicles in residential communities in the driveway, between the street and the sidewalk or between the sidewalk and the garage, a common time-honored practice that maximized parking capacity on private property.

The controversy over Apron Parking resulted from the overzealous use of driveways for parking, especially in Westwood, that resulted in blocked sidewalks and triggered an ADA complaint against the city for allowing violations of the California Vehicle Code prohibition (CVC 22500) against blocking the sidewalk with a parked vehicle.

Rather than simply enforce the CA vehicle code violation against blocked sidewalks, (one that even clarifies how much vehicle can protrude - Lights, mirrors, or devices that are required to be mounted upon a vehicle under this code may extend from the body of the vehicle over the sidewalk to a distance of not more than 10 inches) the City of LA pursued a Municipal Code ban on “Parkway Parking” that prompted a debate over the city’s contradictory definitions of “parkway” and “driveway” and “apron” and “common sense.”

As of last week, the LADOT’s General Manager, Jaime de la Vega has instructed the LADOT’s parking enforcement officers to cease enforcement of LA’s apron parking ban (LAMC 80.53) and informed the City Council that “any citations issued in error under LAMC section 80.53 on October 12, 2011 or later will be administratively canceled.”

No mention was made of those cited over the last few months, in the period of time between the City Attorney’s first instruction to enforce LAMC 80.53 and the City Attorney’s second instruction to suspend enforcement.

The residents of LA were in the dark when the controversial enforcement of LAMC 80.53 began and were effectively left in the dark when enforcement was suspended. Those left holding receipts, citations, penalties and collections notices deserve resolution that recognizes the flawed process and the uneven application of the law.

Most of all, the residents of LA who live in properties with long driveways and apron parking spaces deserve real answers that allow them to live their lives without being left in limbo when it comes to parking their vehicles.

For a recap on the “parkway” controversy, read “Time to Curb LA’s City Attorney,” and “The Public’s Search for Parking, Nuch’s Search for Revenue.” To follow the journey of two neighborhoods through this drama, visit StopLADOT and PalisadesParkingPatrol.

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

Corruption in LA’s Housing Dept Out of Control … and Nowhere for the Buck to Stop

CityWatch, Oct 18, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 83

RETHINKING LA - Last week City Watch LA took LA’s Housing Department (LAHD) to task for its controversial Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) charging that it preyed on small landlords, failed to deliver the oversight it promised, left tenants in limbo and provided a safe-haven for squatters.

Over the weekend, the plot thickened as the LA Times covered a Housing Department employee who exploited her relationship with immigrant landlords, collecting payoffs from them and steering them to her contractor husband. The employee was convicted of felony bribery charges while her husband, also charged in the case, left for South Korea where he remains out of reach of police.

Most damning for the City and the Housing Department is the clear lack of oversight and accountability that has been revealed in incident after incident, going back ten years to when Laura Chick conducted an audit and declared REAP broken.

Last year’s arrest and conviction of an LAHD employee failed to motivate LAHD management to call attention to the case, leaving high-level officials in the city attorney's office, the Personnel Department and the Department of Building and Safety in the dark until informed by the LA Times.

The Assistant General Manager responsible for the REAP program, Robert Aldape, didn’t investigate further to see if there were other incidents, saying employee communications with customers aren't closely monitored.

Speaking of the convicted employee, Aldape said "We simply don't know what interactions she had, people come to the public counter all the time, so there would be no way to track it."

Insiders at the LAHD contend that Aldape has personal motivation to take a laissez-faire attitude, pointing to his prior role as the “executive director” of the LA Housing Law Project, a “tenant advocacy non-profit” which he operated right out of his law office, a private firm that made its money by suing small landlords.

This two-hat journey to the #2 position at the LAHD has allowed Aldape to position himself as a “non-profit director” when dealing with housing issues but as a “law firm principal” when making campaign contributions.

Over the last decade, a cottage industry has blossomed in support of REAP, made up of nonprofit corporations that provide “tenant outreach services” under contract with the LAHD. Critics charge that the nonprofits, once armed with critical information from the LAHD, turn their contracts into lawsuit generation machines against the small landlords who lack the sophistication to fight back.

Faced with a lawsuit, many of the small landlords simply roll over, negotiate a monetary settlement, and look for an exit strategy.

A review of the nearly 1700 properties under the REAP control reveals a disproportionate number of 2 to 4 unit buildings that have been taken from the control of the property owner, serving as anecdotal evidence in support of the landlords’ charges.

The City of LA has heard the allegations of those who claim to suffer at the hands of the LAHD, prompting Councilmember Parks to call on the LAHD and the City Attorney’s Office to investigate the complaints and come up with a report.

This stirred another round of allegations, this time from within the department, from staffers who contend that “The foxes have taken over the henhouse and are partying up. They are calling the tune, and the unwitting public is footing the bill.”

Aldape appeared before the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee and reported that his investigation had found “nothing to substantiate the allegations.”

This self-evaluating systemic of oversight is somehow sufficient for the City Council but when an employee was convicted of felony bribery, Aldape claimed an inability to monitor the actions and communications of employees.

Charges that the LAHD has been run as a personal fiefdom of upper management go back to the days of Mercedes Marquez who left for Washington DC in 2009 to take a position as Assistant Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development Department.

Critics claim that Marquez left in her wake a highly polarized and demoralized department that continues to take its direction from political patrons, leaving potential whistleblowers in fear of the self-investigating regime, and communities vulnerable to the REAP administration that leaves tenants, landlords, and neighbors equally abused.

REAP is the city administered program that evaluates rental properties when they are cited for code violations and if the property is declared “unsafe” or “untenantable” by the LAHD, the city steps in and collects the rent with a discount of up to 50%, depending on whether the conditions are “nuisance” or “hazardous.”

Landlords, tenants and neighbors complain that the good intentions have failed to materialize in good performance, resulting instead in foreclosed properties, blighted buildings, and neighborhoods terrorized by squatters.

Demonstrating the controversial nature of LA’s housing program, the Mayor’s Deputy Mayor of Housing & Economic Development Policy is now referred to as the Deputy Mayor for Economic and Business Policy.

LA’s Housing Department is in such dire straits that even the Mayor’s office knows it’s time to step away from the carnage.

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

LA’s Housing Department: Scofflaw Landlord

CityWatch, Oct 14, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 82

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question for LA’s City Hall: Who are You Working For?

CityWatch, Oct 4, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 79

RETHINKING LA - "Conflict of Interest" charges are fighting words and those who stand accused of serving two masters often find themselves in an uphill battle to defend their honor, their careers, and even their lives.

Ethical clouds have hung over LA’s City Hall for generations, sometimes wispy and prompted by rumor and other times dark and supported by criminal allegations. Political regimes have toppled, reform movements have taken steps to ensure impartiality, and through it all, controversy follows those who speak on behalf of the people of Los Angeles.

The recent Congress of Neighborhoods at LA’s City Hall included training sessions for neighborhood councils on ethics, including conflict of interest and the Brown Act. Perhaps it’s the relentless oversight of community members that has prompted some neighborhood activists to turn it around and reexamine the actions of our current Mayor and City Councilmembers.

Over the course of history, a betrayal of loyalties has consistently been considered one of the most serious crimes against a community and the penalties are typically severe, ranging from excommunication and banishment to imprisonment and execution.

Efforts to ensure loyalty have ranged from dangerous physical challenges in battle and co-mingled bloodlines to public oaths and legal contracts but no single effort has been able to prevent betrayal from entering the battlefield, the courtroom, the sporting arena, the boardroom, council chambers, and the negotiating room.

The art of the double-deal is as old as the act of negotiation itself and some of our wisest and most revered of strategists have included elements of deception and subversion in their counsel, but that doesn’t make it right, it simply makes it common.

On the one hand, the artful manipulation of loyalties carries with it the seductive glamour of a James Bond movie but in reality, the art of the double-cross is less about “the deal” and more about “the betrayal” and the sale of allegiance to the highest bidder.

The people of Los Angeles are surrounded by measures that are in place to ensure that those who act on their behalf are doing so openly, honestly, and impartially. At the same time, there are those who charge that the net is full of holes and only serves to keep honest people honest while the dishonest simply grow more powerful and wealthy.

In sports, professional athletes are forbidden from associating with gamblers and members of organized crime in an effort to ensure that those competing in sporting events are actually competing and not influencing the outcome for financial gain. Baseball’s Pete Rose was denied his place in the Hall of Fame because he served two masters, one was baseball, the other was a bookie.

In legal circles, professionals are held to a high standard that restricts an attorney or a firm from representing any other party with interests adverse to those of a current client.

In local government, elected officials are required to recuse themselves from any negotiations or actions that would benefit them financially. This can include direct benefits as well as benefits to a company or cause that has contributed to the politician.

LA County’s Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO) recently found itself immobilized by contributions when a large developer brought a huge contract before the Board, only to find the entire Board subject to conflict of interest charges because of the liberal contributions that had preceded the contract. The METRO Board, unable to move forward without a vote, chose to invoke the “Hayden Rule” which they defined as “the drawing of straws to select a representative group from the recused members,” providing a randomness that ensured no “conflict of interest.”

METRO went forward, allowing all members of the Board to keep the developer contributions, allowing the Board to vote on the contract, allowing the Developer to benefit from the approved contract, and motivating a member of the audience to call Tom Hayden who was surprised to be credited with the legal “workaround” saying he had never heard of it.

Political figures in LA’s City Hall are regulated on a few different levels, from the Fair Political Practices Commission at the state level to the Ethics Commission at the city level. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa ran afoul of both organizations when he accepted tickets to sports and entertainment events but failed to disclose the gifts as required.

Developer Rick Caruso recently made the news when he resigned from the Coliseum Commission amid charges that he serves two masters, one being the Coliseum Board and the other being USC where he serves as a trustee. USC’s football team is the Coliseum’s largest tenant and the proposed “master lease” would give more control over the Coliseum to USC.

City Councilman Bernard Parks, also on the Coliseum Commission, opposed Caruso’s participation in the USC contract talks and is fighting USC’s efforts, claiming that a private school should not have control over a publicly owned stadium.

On the other side of town, City Councilman Ed Reyes on the receiving end found himself of a complaint that charged him with serving two masters in violation of a state law designed to prevent public officials from also serving on boards, commissions, city councils and other governing bodies that may have interests that clash.

Reyes resigned from the Metro Gold Line Foothill Construction Authority at the urging of deputy city attorneys, who advised “it was less risky to his position as councilman to resign from the Gold Line board should the attorney general conclude that he holds incompatible offices.”

The Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition was the most recent setting for “conflict of interest” charges, coming in the midst of debate over local development issues and the city’s municipal budget.

A presentation on Farmers Field and the AEG’s proposal to move the convention center in the process of bringing a football team to LA drew great debate, most of which revolved around the terms of the deal and the risk to the people of LA. The rigorous debate was best summed up by a community activist who bellowed “Let’s get ready for some Football!” on the condition that any member of the AEG team be expressly forbidden from contributing funds to any politician anywhere in the City of LA, the County of LA, or the State of California. “Only then will the people of LA stand a fair chance of a level playing field.”

This was followed by a speaker who pointed out that the City of LA regularly engages in negotiations with the City’s Union representatives, people who also contribute campaign funds to those who run for office and who represent the people of LA.

“How can the Mayor, the City Council, and the City Attorney represent the people of Los Angeles,” the budget activist asked, “if they are negotiating with Unions who have directly contributed to their political campaigns?”

One might suggest that it cuts both ways, even a Councilmember who was not on the receiving end of Union campaign contributions would lack an impartial position if the Union contributed to their opponent and/or campaigned on behalf of their opponent.

Through it all, the City Attorney is elected by the people of Los Angeles, in a campaign that is fueled by contributions from many special interests, to a position that legally represents “the City, its departments, commissions, and employees in civil litigation and transactions.”

Representatives of LA;s City Attorney frequently remind the people of Los Angeles that it is the Corporate City that is the client, not the people of Los Angeles.

Which master does the City Attorney serve as he takes his place at the table, next to the Mayor and the City Councilmembers, and proceeds to negotiate contracts that benefit the employees of LA while the people of LA aren’t considered “the client” and aren’t invited to the process.

It is imperative that the Mayor and the City Council clearly identify the master they serve. If money has changed hands, they must acknowledge the ethical cloud that follows the money and they must recuse themselves from the negotiations.

Lawyers can lose their licenses for violating specific standards that prevent even the impression of conflict. Athletes can lose their ability to compete just for communicating with known gamblers. Business licenses can be revoked if the operators are found to associate with members of organized crime.

Yet when it comes to LA’s City Hall, the people who are making decisions on behalf of the people of Los Angeles are negotiating with people who have contributed to their political careers. It’s time to take the money off the table and to ask those in City Hall the tough question, “Who are you really working for?”

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

LA’s ACE Program Cuts Both Ways

CityWatch, Sept 30, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 78

RETHINKING LA - “Don't worry,” said the trees when they saw the axe coming, “The handle is one of us.”

LA’s proposed Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) Program is positioned as a panacea capable of curing all that ails the broken City of Los Angeles, including the ongoing budget crisis, collapsing infrastructure, threats to public safety, quality of life issues, courthouse backlogs, overworked and understaffed municipal departments, and a full generation of inefficient code enforcement that has left the landscape of LA littered with billboards, pot shops, and busted sidewalks.

High horse advocates of the ACE program have become so enthralled with the idea of efficient code enforcement that they have missed the parallel journey of Council File No. 05-1853, a City Attorney initiated draft ordinance which would make residents responsible for sidewalk repair.

In other words, as the residents of LA are distracted by the promise of the proposed ACE program, the City Attorney is working to return responsibility for the city’s broken sidewalks to the property owners who will then find themselves on the enforcement end of the newly armed ACE program.

The City Attorney has a strong motivation for getting the ACE program underway and then for shifting responsibility for sidewalk repair to property owners due to the pending settlement of a class action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit which is scheduled for court approval on October 20, 2011.

The current proposed settlement would commit the City of LA to the implementation of a 25 year plan for bringing the City of LA’s sidewalks into ADA compliance. Under current budget conditions, this is hardly a promise the City of LA can make but by shifting the responsibility of sidewalk repair to residents and then arming the City Attorney with ACE enforcement efficiency, the people of LA will soon discover that ACE is the sword that cuts both ways.

The ACE program was initially presented with strong claims of revenue enhancement potential. City Attorney presentations to community groups pointed out that currently, fines go to Sacramento but under ACE, the City of LA gets to keep the money.

Charges that the City of LA was only interested in balancing the budget on the backs of those who can afford it the least have prompted a CLA directive which clarifies that the purpose of the ACE program is to improve code enforcement, not to generate revenue. Of course, saying so doesn’t make it so, but it’s a nice gesture that is only contradicted by reality and the words of Councilmembers and Department managers.

The ACE program is billed by the City Attorney’s office as an alternative to the current system that treats municipal code violations as misdemeanors, resulting in a clogged system that currently has a backlog of 10,000 cases.

ACE is positioned as a simple administrative process of municipal code violation enforcement that will foster “timely compliance with the law in order to protect public health and safety and provide a fair and effective administration of justice.”

The proposed ACE program includes provisions for City Attorney inspectors with the authority to issue Administrative Citations for code violations that they witness. This power is buried in a draft ordinance that lacks clearly defined roles, authorities, and oversight for the proposed Enforcement Officers and is a significant weakness in a proposal that grants unprecedented power to the City Attorney’s office.

Proponents of the program have seized on ACE as a remedy to the quality of life issues that include barking dogs, loud parties, loitering, dirty sidewalks, gambling, filming without a permit, dogs on the beach, fireworks, dog defecations, and curb numbers getting painted without a permit.

Opponents of the program counter that the ACE program is complaint driven, that it results in more uneven application of the municipal code, that it results in selective enforcement of the law, and that it sacrifices due process in return for revenue generation, all at the expense of those who can afford it the least.

The judicial element of the ACE program is made up of Administrative Hearing Officers who are either under the oversight of the City Attorney’s office or completely independent of the City Attorney’s office, depending on whether you are listening to City Attorney representatives on Council Phone or on the Larry Mantle Show on KPCC. When you consider that the proposed ordinance gives the Administrative Hearing Officers subpoena authority, it seems reasonable to delay the ACE proposal until this issue is resolved.

When the Committee expressed concerns about the proposed subpoena authority, Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter jumped quickly, too quickly in fact, to defend it by saying “this allows those charged with a citation to call witnesses.” To hear him speak, it sounds like the cited party will end up with subpoena authority. Regardless, he was unclear on whether this was at the discretion of the Hearing Officer or if it was a right of the cited party. Again, it seems reasonable to delay the ACE proposal until this issue is resolved.

At every turn, the proponents of the proposed ACE program extol the virtues of a system that “decriminalizes” Municipal Code violations, allowing residents to simply pay a fine and go on their way. Missing is a discussion of the due process that also disappears and the resulting system that limits the rights of the charged yet expands the powers of the City Attorney.

Administrative Hearings are final for the residents of Los Angeles and if the ruling is against them, “no further appeal may be filed pursuant to the provisions of this Code.” Yet if the ruling is in favor of the resident, the City Attorney can still pursue “any and all remedies provided by law.”

While the decriminalization of the actual code violation is touted as a benefit, the result is a swift journey to judgment where the failure to abide by the Administrative Order or pay the Administrative Fine is subject to “criminal remedies, civil action, injunctive relief, specific performance, and the recordation of a lien or a notice of the Administrative Violation against real property.” The penalties, coupled with the threat of enforcement, are hardly in scale with decriminalized violations. Again, it seems reasonable to delay the ACE proposal until this issue is resolved.

Charges that the proposed ACE program, as drafted by the City Attorney, is nothing more than an employment strategy with a funding stream are hard to ignore when the draft ordinance provides for the recovery of “reasonable attorney’s fees and all costs.” If the ACE proposal is truly an efficient program, the City Attorney’s office should be experiencing savings, not elbowing its way to the feeding trough in an embarrassing display of bureaucratic gluttony.

This past Monday, the proposed ACE program made another appearance at the City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee, drawing a standing room only crowd that spoke passionately about the ACE program, with 16 members of the public in favor of ACE and 14 members opposed.

The City Hall spin team watched the Committee send the ACE motion back to the City Attorney for a systemic overhaul, a “continuance” that was erroneously referred to as “unanimous endorsement.” The split audience was also referred to as supportive, completely dismissing the positions of those who showed up to protest.

The proposed ACE program, as presented by the City Attorney’s office, fell far short of the City’s Chief Legislative Analyst standards, enduring 14 recommendations for adjustment from the CLA and a fairly significant round of detailed concerns from the Committee, resulting in a continuance to Monday, October 3, when the City Attorney will return with another version of the proposed ACE program.

The original motion that put the proposed ACE program in motion was made in January of 2010 by Councilman Koretz, seconded by Councilman Parks, and positioned as an opportunity to create “a more efficient and effective code enforcement program through the use of administrative citations, as an alternative to legal action.”

The long journey to this week’s continuance has been one of Budget and Finance Committee instructions and City Attorney responses, a see-saw battle that pits the original intentions of Councilman Koretz against the desires of the City Attorney’s office.

The City Attorney’s draft ordinance does not restrict, limit, or specify which Municipal Code Sections would be covered or enforceable under the ACE program, in spite of prior instructions from the Committee to specify participating departments and relevant code sections.

Councilman Englander asked Chief Deputy City Attorney Carter if the proposed ACE program applied to LA’s entire Municipal Code and he received a very quiet affirmative answer, prompting another directive to the City Attorney to prepare a list that limits and clarifies the appropriate codes.

Councilman Koretz acknowledged the concerns of the public about due process, uneven application of the law, the vulnerability of a complaint driven system, and the risk of selective prosecution, all of which prompted him to insist that the ACE program be unfolded slowly as a pilot program, an instruction that has met resistance from the City Attorney. Koretz’s final position was that the LAPD was the only department to be involved in the initial “pilot” phase and that the Housing Department and Animal Services would be the next two in line.

Committee Chair Parks acquiesced to Koretz’s suggestion that the program start slowly with the LAPD, expressing disappointment that the pilot didn’t include Housing and Animal Services, and pointing out that the current budget already included anticipated revenue from Animal Services code enforcement actions. Parks was firm in his contention that the Department of Building and Safety was an unsuitable participant in the ACE program because the department was “in a quagmire.”

Councilman Englander noted that if the City of LA is about to get busy enforcing municipal code such as the prohibition of gas powered leaf blowers, it should first start by putting an end to its own code violations, referring to the City’s use of illegal leaf blowers.

The irony to having the LAPD serve as the test pilot for the proposed ACE program is that the LAPD’s new division facilities are all built in violation of LAMC 12.21, the same section that is used to cite residents for land use violations. In fact, a significant number of people that spoke in opposition were there with complaint driven 12.21 violations that had resulted in threats of “liens, garnishment, and other legal actions” all because of over-in-height fences.

There is no doubt that the City of LA is mired in a tremendously inefficient system of code enforcement but to embrace the current ACE program is to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.

To those who stand ready to call in their neighbor for that barking dog, pause for a moment and look out the window at your sidewalk. If it is broken, remember that the sword cuts both ways and while your neighbor is muzzling his dog, you will be repaving your sidewalks.

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

LA’s ACE Program Comes with a Big Tip Jar

CityWatch, Sept 27, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 77

RETHINKING LA - When City Hall starts a conversation by invoking a recap of “these challenging economic times” you can count on another cut to city services, another increase in fees and fines, or a combination of both.

The City Attorney’s proposed Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) program is a classic example of the City’s commitment to balancing the budget on the backs of the public while reprioritizing the delivery of city services that can be monetized.

LA’s proposed ACE program is positioned as a “broken windows” solution to crime prevention that also decriminalized minor code violations and allows LA’s residents to simply pay administrative fines for their wicked ways, thus avoiding the burden of due process and judicial oversight.

This hollow commitment to crime prevention and compassionate enforcement is a transparent and thinly disguised attempt to generate revenue at the expense of those who can afford it the least.

The “broken windows” theory of crime prevention was first presented by social scientists James Wilson and George Kelling in an article titled “Broken Windows” that offered this example:

“Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.

Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars.”

If the City Attorney is a true believer in the “broken windows” theory of crime prevention, surely we can expect the ACE program to also focus on the people responsible for the broken streets of LA and the broken sidewalks of LA. But this is not the case.

The City Attorney’s “broken windows” argument is a red herring that distracts the public from the larger failings of City Hall and the ever dwindling delivery of city services, instead focusing on the residents and squeezing those who can afford it the least.

As for the notion that the proposed ACE program would decriminalize small code violations, if the City Attorney was sincere, he’d do what he’s doing now, refuse to prosecute them as crimes. But the ACE program actually treats the violations administratively, levies fees and fines, and then treats the payment of the penalty criminally, expediting the process by limiting due process.

During the Dark Ages, it was a common tradition for those on the way to the gallows to “tip the executioner” in the hope that the process would be swift and painless, in fact some even paid to have the axe sharpened.

LA’s proposed ACE program provides the City Attorney an enforcement fee, an administrative fee, and even sharpens the procedural axe so that the code enforcement process can be swift and painless, perhaps even fatal, to those who are already struggling to stay afloat financially.

LA’s proposed ACE program is the beginning of the Dark Ages for the residents of Los Angeles, an era where justice goes to those who can afford to pay while those who are already suffering in “these challenging economic times” will be subjected to liens, garnishments, and criminal prosecution, simply for failing to tip the executioner.

One of the most common justifications for the City Attorney’s scheme is the common City Hall claim that there is a legal requirement for the City to investigate all complaints and to prosecute accordingly. Yet when the CA’s office, the Council offices, and the investigating offices are challenged on this claim, none of them can produce the legal statute to support this position.

The fact is, LA’s proposed ACE program is built on a complaint driven system that is rebranded as “community policing” but in reality is the empowerment of neighbor against neighbor without the necessary checks and balances.

LA’s proposed ACE program is often compared to programs in other cities such as San Diego but no mention is made of the fact that code violation complaints went up after the implementation of their ACE program went into effect.

LA’s current complaint driven system is already out of control with no checks and balances and the proposed ACE program simply expedites the operation of a broken system.

Consider the City’s handling of four houses that sit side by side in East Hollywood, right in the middle of a gang injunction zone. The first home, the third home and the fourth home were all subjects of complaints from one neighbor for over-in-height fences. The city cracked down and levied fines ($325), fees ($550), penalties ($1925) and asked for a variance ($4800).

Meanwhile the second house is abandoned, the front yard is filled with vehicles and the building is filled with squatters. Yet the city doesn’t respond. There’s nobody to fine, no resident to pay the penalty, no funding source for inspections, no owner to pay for a variance.

The same complaining neighbor has turned in homeowners throughout the community for violations that have resulted in investigations and actions that exceed other communities by a ratio of 60 to 1. This isn’t justice or even a prioritization of public safety, it’s simply turbo-charging a complaint driven system that results in the uneven application of the law and selective prosecution.

LA’s priority is Public Safety and it is imperative that the different departments and agencies that have a piece of the public safety mandate work together.

Creating paupers out of victims who build fences to protect their homes, their property and their families is no way to address public safety, it’s a naked attempt to fund failing departments.

The current proposed ACE program has been stripped of most references to revenue generation but the truth remains, it is a classic example of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s cost recovery mandate taken to the point of absurdity.

In fact, the ACE program’s development included much debate over the revenue in the Code Compliance Fund, initially under the City Attorney’s control, now under the City Council’s control, demonstrating that the essence of the ACE program is funding.

This position was echoed at Saturday’s Congress of Neighborhoods when Ray Chan, Executive Officer of the Department of Building and Safety clearly articulated “The new fee structure helps the General Fund so the General Fund can provide funding for the function of the Department.”

Code enforcement starts at home and if City Attorney Carmen Trutanich were serious about enforcing the law, he’d start with City Hall. He would insist that the City of LA abide by the Federal mandate to bring the streets and sidewalks up to ADA compliance and he’d put the focus where it belongs, on the criminals, not on the residents.

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

Bell Tolls for Nuch’s ACE Program

CityWatch, Sept 16, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 75

The flotsam and jetsam left in the wake of Bell’s dramatic municipal meltdown should serve as a warning that City Attorney Carmen “Nuch” Trutanich’s Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) program is a revenue enhancement scheme that replaces due process with “due on demand!”

The City Attorney’s office refers to the ACE program as a “promising proposal” that will provide “real-time and cost-effective enforcement” of our City’s Municipal Code, including “broken window” violations, while simultaneously generating revenue for the City.

Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter says the program will de-criminalize illegal construction work, illegal street vending, and other low-level misdemeanors and allow city departments to fine perpetrators instead.

Proponents of the program claim the streamlined process will divert tens of thousands of cases a year from backlogged criminal courtrooms, delivering justice swiftly and efficiently.

Critics point out that the “swift and efficient delivery of justice” comes at the expense of due process and neutral oversight, pointing out that the City Attorney will have authority over the Administrative Law Judges who will hear the cases, tipping the scales of justice in favor of the city and at the expense of its residents.

Arguments in favor of LA’s proposed ACE program typically include comparisons to similar programs in San Diego, Santa Monica, and Sacramento. Much is made of their successes but little notice is paid to the differences, such as firewalls between the prosecution and the hearing officers.

LA’s program would have the City Attorney’s office enforcing code violations and also hiring, training, and administering the judicial element of the program. It’s hard to call this anything other that a “judge and jury” scenario that is stacked in favor of enforcement at the expense of due process.

The most powerful argument against LA’s proposed ACE program looks to the City of Bell and examines all that went wrong with their turbo charged code enforcement program that also focused on efficiency and revenue enhancement at the expense of its residents.

The LA Times covered Bell’s code enforcement scheme and reported “Legal experts point to a lack of due process and judicial oversight in hundreds of ‘civil compromises’ in which plumbers, carpet cleaners and bottle-gatherers paid up to $1,000 for alleged code violations.”

The Times continues, “Experts said Bell's practice was unheard of elsewhere and legally questionable on at least two grounds: the failure to have a judge review the "settlements" and the seizure of property, which was often done on the grounds that cars, trucks and other goods were evidence needed for investigations that do not appear to have taken place.”

LA’s ACE program includes a provision that would allow the City Attorney’s office to retain the authority to prosecute the violations, while at the same time allowing it to take people out of the criminal court system and into an administrative program where the emphasis is on efficiency and revenue.

Critics claim that the ACE program, as proposed in Los Angeles, will allow a complaint-driven code enforcement policy to power a revenue generation process that imposes an administrative and financial burden on those who can afford it the least, the working class and small-business operators who already struggle to survive.

There is no dispute that code enforcement in the City of LA is a mess and that there are dozens of departments with some authority and responsibility over the administration of the law, the codes, the rules, and the policies of the City of LA.

The idea that City Hall could operate more efficiently is valid, but any steps in that direction must come with a commitment to due process and to justice. The moment revenue enhancement is positioned as justification for enhancing law enforcement authority, a dangerous line gets crossed.

LA’s ACE program has already crossed that line, one where the City Attorney’s office talks of “decriminalizing code violations” and “enforcing quality of life issues” but fails to acknowledge the absence of checks and balances, instead pitching the ACE program based on its budget balancing merits.

LA’s program has too much in common with Bell’s code enforcement program which was overseen by City Prosecutor Eric Eggena. In both cases the focus on revenue is transparent and at the expense of due process. In both cases, the pursuit of revenue from citations, impounds, and settlements is a powerful motivating force that operates at the expense of those who can least afford to fight for their rights.

The City Attorney’s mandate is three-fold; to provide legal advice and guidance to the City of LA, to improve the quality of life and public safety through prosecution of criminal misdemeanors and implementation of innovative crime prevention measures, and to effectively and efficiently represent the City in civil litigation and transactions.

If the ACE program is approved, the City Attorney will be able to add “Balance the City’s budget on the backs of those who can least afford it!” to the mandate.

Mayor Villaraigosa’s ill-conceived “cost recovery” mandate continues to relieve City Hall of an obligation to focus on the delivery of services, instead shifting the focus to revenue enhancement. The City Attorney’s ACE program clearly crosses the line and pits the City of LA against its residents and small businesses, positioning them as simple revenue generators.

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

Los Angeles: Liberty and Justice for … Some

CityWatch, Sept 16, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 74

Los Angeles is the Capital of Contradictions and all it takes is a fence to prove that point.

On the one hand, the Residents in East Hollywood have found themselves targeted by Building & Safety and the City Attorney because they dared to build over-in-height fences around their homes, their property, and their families in order to protect themselves from criminals.

On the other hand, the Residents of Runyon Canyon have the local City Council office supporting a fence that would protect an entire neighborhood against the threat of...gasp...tourists!

As the residents of East Hollywood plead for a reprieve from the City Attorney’s enforcement of the Building & Safety citations, their request falls on deaf ears while the residents of Runyon Canyon will have their case heard next week in the City Council's Public Works Committee.

East Hollywood residents have two gang injunctions in place but the City Attorney’s Neighborhood Prosecutor is unable to actually enforce the injunctions and abatement actions, leaving squatters, drug dealers, gangbangers, prostitutes and thieves free to work their trade. The City of LA is kept busy cracking down on the residents who build over-in-height fences to protect themselves from these people.

Runyon Canyon residents have endured “security issues such as loitering, littering, drinking and smoking” due to the popularity of the area for tourists, the folks who come from around the world to spend their hard earned money in our community. As Tourism moves to the #1 position in job generation, ahead of international trade, manufacturing plants, film and TV studios, aerospace firms, and colleges and universities, the City of LA responds by criminalizing tourists.

That’s right, it turns out that the tourists are a greater threat to the residents of Runyon Canyon than gangbangers are to the residents of East Hollywood.

The absurdity gets thicker.

In East Hollywood, the City Attorney’s office instructs locals to simply apply for a “Fence District,” something that doesn’t exist, that doesn’t have an application or implementation standard in place, that has no established fee, and that is simply a theoretical proposition at this point.

One might argue that there already are “Fence Districts” in place. For example, Monroe Street has 20 homes and 16 of them have over-in-height fences, resulting in a de facto “Fence District.”

While the legal experts debate the uneven application of LA’s municipal code, it’s important to note that 24 years ago, Van Nuys Municipal Judge Kenneth Lee Chotiner dismissed an over-in-height fence case, noting the ubiquitous nature of over-in-height fences and calling for “standards to guide prosecution of these offenses.”

East Hollywood is still waiting on those standards while Building & Safety is still citing residents.

In Runyon Canyon, the City Council motion relies on the California Vehicle Code (CVC) which says in section 21101.4 that a local municipal authority can close a street to the public if it’s found that “there is serious and continual criminal activity” in the area recommended for closure and if it is determined that it is the traffic that contributes to the criminal activity.

The City Council motion clearly articulates that the “serious and continual criminal activity” in Runyon Canyon consists of “loitering, littering, drinking and smoking” but no mention is made of whether the tourists are on foot or in vehicles.

While the legal experts debate the nature of “serious crime,” it’s important to note that 17 years ago Judge Fred Cook of the 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled against the City of Los Angeles and the Whitley Heights Civic Association in their gated community proposal, opining “we doubt the Legislature wants to permit a return to feudal times with each suburb being a fiefdom to which other citizens of the state are denied their fundamental right of access to use public streets within those areas.”

At the time of the Whitley Heights case, the City of LA had over 100 pending applications for street closures.

The debate over public space and private space is not new, neither is the idea that gated communities and walled off homes may have an immediate benefit to those on the inside but not to those on the outside.

While the debate over “crime prevention through environmental design” (CPTED) simmers, it’s imperative that the City of LA consider the rulings and decisions that have established legal precedent and that serve as the standard for City Hall actions and decisions.

Most importantly, the City of Los Angeles must treat the residents fairly and equitably, delivering city services consistently and applying the law evenly.

It’s not just the mark of a Great City, it the law.

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

The Public’s Search for Parking, Nuch’s Search for Revenue

CityWatch, Sept 13, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 73

RETHINKING LA - Man’s search for parking, Nuch’s search for revenue The City of LA’s recent enthusiasm for citing Angelenos who park in front of their driveways, in their driveways, and on the apron approach to their property has stirred a citywide debate on blocked sidewalks, limited parking, and uneven application of the law. It was the abundance of blocked sidewalks in Westwood that originally drew the ire of mobility advocates who invoked the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and took the City of Los Angeles to court.

However, rather than simply direct the City of LA to enforce the California State prohibition against parking vehicles so that they block the sidewalk (CVC 22500), the City Attorney instructed the LADOT to enforce a municipal ban on “Parkway Parking” (LAMC 81.53) which applies to some vehicles that aren’t blocking sidewalks and excludes some vehicles that are blocking sidewalks.

There are two plausible explanations for the City Attorney Carmen “Nuch” Trutanich’s decision to pursue the more complicated and less effective solution to the problem of blocked sidewalks, three if you count simple incompetence.

Last week’s City Watch article on this issue drew significant feedback, from the Palisades to East Hollywood to San Pedro, and the comments tended to be split between those who thought the City Attorney was fearful of losing another ADA case and those who thought the City Attorney was positioning another revenue scheme.

The revenue scheme theory has two parts, the immediate and the long-term.

A source within the City Attorney’s office explained that tickets written on CVC violations resulted in less revenue to the City of LA than tickets written on LAMC violations. Anyone who has been following Nuch’s ACE program knows that the City Attorney considers the LA Municipal Code as a checkbook that can be used by his office to balance the budget.

A property owner in Westwood who has been involved in this battle over “apron parking” for decades revealed that one of the working “solutions” to the ADA battle is a permitting process that, by her calculations, would generate more revenue from her tenants than the property taxes on the apartment building.

In either case, the focus is on revenue, not results, resulting in a long drawn out journey that does little to keep the sidewalks clear for the mobility challenged but does lots to generate revenue for the City of LA.

The ADA lawsuit theory also has two parts, the City’s track record with ADA lawsuits (not good) and Nuch’s solution to the blocked sidewalk dilemma (also not good).

Earlier this year, a Federal Judge agreed with ADA advocates who contended that the City of LA had failed in its ADA obligations to provide the disabled residents of LA with 1) an emergency evacuation and transportation plan, 2) an emergency notification plan, 3) an emergency shelter plan. In all three cases, the City of LA’s key failure was “accessibility.”

More recently, a different Federal Judge agreed with ADA advocates who charged that the City of LA had allowed the sidewalks to deteriorate to such a degree that they presented an access and mobility crisis for the disabled.

The City of LA agreed to 1) install curb cuts or access ramps at 1,000 intersections within the year, 2) spend $4 million per year to improve pedestrian crossing in high-risk areas, 3) bring the entire city into compliance within 25 years, 4) complete a citywide survey of ADA needs, 5) form an ADA compliance advisory committee.

It’s against this backdrop of ADA issues and resolutions that the City Attorney finds himself negotiating for a settlement to the current lawsuit filed against the City of LA, one that addresses Apron Parking as the problem, not blocked sidewalks.

Nuch has rolled over, allowing the plaintiff to frame the debate in such a way that “Apron Parking” is defined as "the practice of vehicles parking in driveways so they protrude onto the pedestrians rights of way, leaving insufficient space for persons with mobility aids to pass."

An outraged recipient of an LADOT citation argues “This is like defining "Street Parking" as "the practice of parking on the street parallel to the curb so the car protrudes onto a driveway opening, leaving insufficient space for persons with cars to pass into their driveways," Or, "metered parking" as"the practice of parking in a metered space without paying the meter." It is a fallacious definition. 

Nuch continues with the smoke screen by pointing toward Sacramento and asserting that LA’s problem requires State legislation to solve, ignoring the simple fact that the State of CA already expressly authorizes municipal authorities to implement a process that would allow owners or lessees to park in front of their driveways. (CVC 22500 and CVC 22507.2)

As for the concerns brought up by Councilman Koretz on the State’s silence on “Apron Parking,” the legal standard of “silence is consent” has been around since the 14th century. In other words, that which is not forbidden is permitted.

Based on the actions of Koretz in City Council, it is apparent that he believes that there can be and should be ADA compliant “Apron Parking” in the City of Los Angeles.

Why then is the City Attorney insisting we need state legislation before we can implement a program? 

At the Magic Castle, this would be referred to as misdirection, an integral element of sleight-of-hand. Of course, at the Magic Castle, the audience knows that it’s simply the illusion of reality.

At City Hall, the misdirection keeps the LADOT citing vehicles that have nothing to do with blocked sidewalks, using a municipal code that has long been up for revision, demonstrating that the behavior isn’t wrong, it’s just citable.

The City Attorney’s misdirection also keeps the City Council pontificating on the false dichotomy between an apron parking system which fully protects the rights of the disabled and the legitimate parking needs of neighborhood residents. The irony here is that in some cases, it is the disabled who are negatively impacted by the current apron parking restrictions.

Whether Nuch’s misguided instructions to the LADOT are part of a simple scheme for increased revenue to the City of LA or a poorly executed response to pending ADA litigation, the result is the same, the sidewalks are still blocked but the aprons are clear.

The issue has resonated through the Palisades, resulting in a community action that addresses the LADOT’s inability to apply the law in the context of the environment. When the issue is blocked sidewalks and there are no sidewalks, why is the LADOT citing people for parking in their driveways or in front of their driveways?

The LADOT’s citations for LAMC 81.53 violations carry a first time penalty of $58, a late fee of $116, and cost $141 for the second offense.

In times such as these, it is absolutely arrogant and cavalier of the City Attorney to avoid the real ADA issue of blocked sidewalks in favor of a revenue scheme that has significant negative impact to the residents of Los Angeles.

Watching Nuch fumble the “Apron Parking” issue brings the words of former Los Angeles City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter to mind, “I used to believe in conspiracies, until I discovered incompetence."

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

Time to Curb LA’s City Attorney

CityWatch, Sept 9, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 72

RETHINKING LA - LA’s City Attorney, Carmen Trutanich, is a solution in search of a problem and his heavy-handed response to LA’s “apron parking” drama demonstrates that it is “Nuch” that needs to be curbed, not the Angelenos who park their cars in their driveways between the street and the sidewalk.

For as long as there has been a shortage of parking, Angelenos in densely populated neighborhoods such as those around UCLA have parked in their driveways, between the curb and the sidewalk or between the sidewalk and the building. As the number of vehicles increased, some residents started parking on the sidewalks. Eventually the fine line between parking on the apron and blocking the sidewalk got blurred and now that the City Attorney has entered the fray, he has come down on the wrong side of the line.

This practice of blocking the sidewalk with a parked vehicle is prohibited in the California Vehicle Code in a section that clearly articulates the violation: CVC 22500 No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle whether attended or unattended...(f) On any portion of a sidewalk, or with the body of the vehicle extending over any portion of a sidewalk...

Unfortunately, the LADOT has had more important issues to address and their failure to enforce simple “blocked sidewalk” violations has resulted in a pedestrian hostile environment in some communities, one that is literally unbreachable to those with limited mobility. It has also resulted in a legal action against the City of LA that invokes the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which holds municipal authorities responsible for maintaining ADA compliant infrastructure in the public right of way.

The City Attorney, on the receiving end of the ADA legal action, jumped in feet first and started giving legal advice and operational direction to the LADOT, resulting in a strange sequence of actions that raises a few questions and fails to effectively address the blocked sidewalks of Los Angeles.

1) Does the City Attorney give legal advice to the City’s many Departments or does he actually direct them?

The recent actions of the LADOT does not seem to reflect a General Manager acting on the advice of the City Attorney but a Department that gets its marching orders from the City Attorney. When did this shift in authority take place?

Not even the City Council “directs” the LADOT on operations, instead relying on recommendations and requests for reports, reviews, studies, and other “nudges” that typically consume energy and staffing but fail to direct the General Managers who answer to the Mayor.

In fact the City Council attempted to address the “apron parking” issue in 2007 but their calls for LADOT enforcement of blocked sidewalks were ignored.

2) Does the City Attorney look for the most difficult route to a solution or did he just miss the obvious?

The opportunity to enforce CVC 22500 (f) would directly address the concerns of the ADA advocates who are focused on blocked sidewalks but instead, the City Attorney went off on a legal goose chase that invokes the nebulous “apron parking ban” and then rests on shaky legal ground.

Current citations are written as violations of LA’s Municipal Code 80.53 which says: “No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle within any parkway.” Why start a debate over the definition of “Parkway” when it’s not the issue. The issue is blocked sidewalks.

The City of LA defines “parkway” as “that portion of a street other than a roadway or a sidewalk” and goes on to clarify that the term "parkway" is defined as the area of the street between the back of curb and the sidewalk that is typically planted or landscaped.

3) If the LADOT’s recent enthusiasm for enforcing the City Attorney’s interpretation of LA’s “apron parking” ban is meant to demonstrate equal application of the law, why did the LADOT wait until the end of UCLA’s school year to begin enforcement?

The LADOT’s selective enforcement of the City Attorney’s directive missed the issue of parking congestion and blocked sidewalks in Westwood. Instead it resulted in a July 25th citation for a couple who reside miles from UCLA in a neighborhood they have lived in for decades. 20 years ago they approached the City of LA’s Department of Transportation, receiving permission from “Robert Moran” to park parallel to their double-wide driveway, “as long as the vehicle wasn’t on the curb, sidewalk, or the planted parkway area.”

Then, without so much as a warning or a heads up, the mid-city residents were cited for parking parallel to the curbline, in front of their own driveway, in the same place they have parked their car for decades.

The irony to the LADOT’s misguided use of LAMC 80.53 is that is fails to address the vehicles that are pulled forward toward the building but fail to clear the sidewalk. The sidewalk remains blocked and the LADOT misses an opportunity to actually be effective.

4) If the City Council has a track record demonstrating past and present attempts to resolve the “apron parking” dilemma by clarifying LA’s Municipal Code, why doesn’t the City Attorney partner with the City Council in separating the issues?

As long ago as 1975, LA’s City Council has attempted to resolve the issue with an ordinance that would specifically permit the parking of motor vehicles “between the street and the sidewalk, in those cases where the vehicles does not protrude either into the street or fully or partially block the sidewalk.” The motion died on the vine for lack of interest.

Several years ago, LA’s City Council again took up the issue, this time in reaction to a campaign initiated by Michael Dukakis who was a visiting UCLA professor in the Department of Public Policy for the School of Public Affairs.

The pressure to clear the sidewalks by enforcing the “Apron Parking” ban was met with equal pressure to maximize parking inventory by maintaining the status quo. Again, any legislative or enforcement activity simply faded as people moved on.

Last month, in response to complaints from the residents who were on the citation end of a flurry of LADOT parking enforcement activity, the City Council again took up the issue, this time advancing a “recommendation” that would “INSTRUCT and REQUEST, as appropriate, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation and the City Attorney to report back on:

a. potential State legislation to correct apron parking problems.

b. potential creation of a program to deal with parking in driveways in a way that is
compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

c. a program to allow apron parking that is ADA compliant.

d. meeting with plaintiffs and creating a program in cooperation with the plaintiffs.

Missing from this brouhaha is the simple strategy of sending the LADOT off to enforce the state prohibition against blocking a sidewalk and allowing the “apron” or “parkway” debate to fade into oblivion where it belongs.

5) If the City Attorney was serious about the pending ADA legal action that is the direct result of blocked or inaccessible sidewalks, why is he silent on the issue of LA’s broken sidewalks?

The City of Los Angeles enacted LAMC 62.104 in 1974 and accepted responsibility for the damage to the sidewalks of LA caused by city owned trees, placing responsibility for those repairs with the Department of Public Works.

Why is the City Attorney addressing the City of LA’s ADA issues by instructing the LADOT to go after the residents while avoiding the larger issue of LA’s responsibility to maintain its sidewalks in good repair?

By the way, the City of Los Angeles defines “apron” as that portion of a driveway approach, exclusive of side slopes or driveway curb returns, extending from the gutter flow line to the property line.

The California Vehicle Code doesn’t mention a ban on “apron parking,” the LAMC doesn’t mention a ban on “apron parking,” it’s only the City Attorney who says “apron parking in the City of Los Angeles is illegal and subject to enforcement.”

Perhaps it’s time for the City Attorney to do the homework and to rely on the specific bans that actually exist, such as blocking the sidewalk, blocking a driveway without permission, and blocking the street.

The debate over street parking and the use of public space is a worthy topic, one that will never get addressed as long as the City Attorney and the LADOT act in concert to cloud the waters and avoid the real issue, which is the blocked sidewalks in LA that are in violation of ADA requirements.

It is important that the City Attorney focus on the ADA issue at hand and that he act to bring the full spectrum of sidewalk access into compliance by focusing on the sidewalks, not the aprons. His current action is simply an engineered conflict that diverts the discussion from the issue, “ensuring that pedestrian rights of way are kept free of temporary or permanent obstructions.”

Most importantly, it’s time for the City of LA to clarify the role of the City Attorney and to put an end to common refrain, “I’m only acting on the City Attorney’s direction.” Especially since the City Attorney is unclear on the law, on due process, and on the notion of equal application of the law.

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