Grass Roots Voices Put the Brakes on ACE, Parking Tickets, Fences

CityWatch, Oct 21, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 84

PEOPLE POWER - The trek to City Hall in order to make two minutes of public comment on an issue that appears to be a done-deal can be such an idealistic but unrewarding experience. But three different campaigns demonstrated that it really does make a difference.

● The City of LA’s Administrative Citation Enforcement program was well on its way to the City Council, fueled by such confidence that Councilman Koretz released the victory announcement in advance of the victory. He should have waited.

For two weeks in a row, opponents of the City Attorney’s proposed version of the ACE program spoke before the Budget & Finance Committee, raising enough concerns to prompt Councilman Rosendahl to declare "This ordinance is half-baked!"

The proposed ACE program ordinance was sent back to the City Attorney’s office for repairs, a process that is meant to reconcile the differences between the vision for code enforcement and the reality of the City Attorney’s proposal.

● The Department of Transportation ill-advised enforcement of LA’s murky apron-parking prohibition prompted a City Watch article that challenged the City Attorney’s motives and another article that challenged the legality of the City’s newfound enthusiasm for aprons.

Community leaders built websites such as StopLADOT and Palisades Parking Patrol, organized citywide pickets, and petitioned their government in the form of public comment.

It took a couple of motions, the first one completely ineffective and the second one more convincing, before the City Attorney issued a statement acknowledging merits of the public argument:

“The Los Angeles City Council approved a motion on October 12, 2011, suspending enforcement of LAMC Section 80.53. While Section 80.53 is suspended, an owner or lessee may park on the apron as long as no portion of the vehicle touches a sidewalk or projects into the street in violation of California Vehicle Code Sections 22500(e) and (f), respectively. Enforcement of California Vehicle Section 22500, in its entirety, will remain in full force and effect. In addition, other sections of the Los Angeles Municipal Code regulating "parkways" shall also remain in full force and effect.”

● The third round of public comments to result in a victory came from the residents of East Hollywood who were in search of relief from the “code enforcement zealots” responsible for 177 over-in-height fence citations that resulted in fees, fines, and penalties that then resulted in liens, garnishments, and legal actions.

The journey to City Hall took four months and began with a dozen weekly neighborhood walking tours [link] to engage the community, the local LAPD Captains, the businesses, and community groups. The East Hollywood Street Beat mobilized on the streets and then went indoors, transitioning into the LA City Works civic engagement training that prepared them for their public comments at City Hall.

The East Hollywood residents spoke out at the Budget & Finance Committee [link] in opposition to the proposed ACE program and then returned to City Hall to protest the Building & Safety citations that they claim “criminalize the residents while ignoring the
criminals!”

City Council President Eric Garcetti stepped out of the City Council proceedings, passing the gavel to Councilman Zine, and listening to the stakeholders’ stories of the complaint driven system of code enforcement that has resulted in uneven application of the law and selective prosecution of code violations.

Garcetti brought in David Lara from Building & Safety and Jane Usher from the City Attorney’s office and set three solutions in play.

1) A moratorium on over-in-height fence and front yard use code violation enforcement and prosecution.

2) A moratorium on the collection of fees, fines, and penalties as well as a moratorium on liens, garnishments, and legal actions for non-compliance.

3) The creation of LA’s first Fence Height District.

In each of these three examples, the work is far from done, but it’s much farther along than it would have been if the public had remained silent.

These three campaigns, from the opponents of ACE to those cited for Apron Parking to the victims of zealous Building & Safety citations, all demonstrate that it pays to speak up and to partner in solutions that improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods.

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

Speak Up! It Pays!

CityWatch, Oct 18, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 83

PEOPLE POWER - The trek to City Hall in order to make two minutes of public comment on an issue that appears to be a done-deal can be such an idealistic but unrewarding experience. But three different campaigns demonstrated that it really does make a difference.

● The City of LA’s Administrative Citation Enforcement program was well on its way to the City Council, fueled by such confidence that Councilman Koretz released the victory announcement in advance of the victory. He should have waited.

For two weeks in a row, opponents of the City Attorney’s proposed version of the ACE program spoke before the Budget & Finance Committee, raising enough concerns to prompt Councilman Rosendahl to declare "This ordinance is half-baked!"

The proposed ACE program ordinance was sent back to the City Attorney’s office for repairs, a process that is meant to reconcile the differences between the vision for code enforcement and the reality of the City Attorney’s proposal.

● The Department of Transportation ill-advised enforcement of LA’s murky apron-parking prohibition prompted a City Watch article that challenged the City Attorney’s motives and another article that challenged the legality of the City’s newfound enthusiasm for aprons. [link]

Community leaders built websites such as StopLADOT and Palisades Parking Patrol, organized citywide pickets, and petitioned their government in the form of public comment.

It took a couple of motions, the first one completely ineffective and the second one more convincing, before the City Attorney issued a statement acknowledging merits of the public argument:

“The Los Angeles City Council approved a motion on October 12, 2011, suspending enforcement of LAMC Section 80.53. While Section 80.53 is suspended, an owner or lessee may park on the apron as long as no portion of the vehicle touches a sidewalk or projects into the street in violation of California Vehicle Code Sections 22500(e) and (f), respectively. Enforcement of California Vehicle Section 22500, in its entirety, will remain in full force and effect. In addition, other sections of the Los Angeles Municipal Code regulating "parkways" shall also remain in full force and effect.”

● The third round of public comments to result in a victory came from the residents of East Hollywood who were in search of relief from the “code enforcement zealots” responsible for 177 over-in-height fence citations that resulted in fees, fines, and penalties that then resulted in liens, garnishments, and legal actions.

The journey to City Hall took four months and began with a dozen weekly neighborhood walking tours to engage the community, the local LAPD Captains, the businesses, and community groups. The East Hollywood Street Beat mobilized on the streets and then went indoors, transitioning into the LA City Works civic engagement training that prepared them for their public comments at City Hall.

The East Hollywood residents spoke out at the Budget & Finance Committee in opposition to the proposed ACE program and then returned to City Hall to protest the Building & Safety citations that they claim “criminalize the residents while ignoring the criminals!”

City Council President Eric Garcetti stepped out of the City Council proceedings, passing the gavel to Councilman Zine, and listening to the stakeholders’ stories of the complaint driven system of code enforcement that has resulted in uneven application of the law and selective prosecution of code violations.

Garcetti brought in David Lara from Building & Safety and Jane Usher from the City Attorney’s office and set three solutions in play.

1) A moratorium on over-in-height fence and front yard use code violation enforcement and prosecution.

2) A moratorium on the collection of fees, fines, and penalties as well as a moratorium on liens, garnishments, and legal actions for non-compliance.

3) The creation of LA’s first Fence Height District.

In each of these three examples, the work is far from done, but it’s much farther along than it would have been if the public had remained silent.

These three campaigns, from the opponents of ACE to those cited for Apron Parking to the victims of zealous Building & Safety citations, all demonstrate that it pays to speak up and to partner in solutions that improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods.

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

Rosendahl Calls LA’s ACE Ordinance “Half-Baked”

CityWatch, Oct 4, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 79

UPDATE - LA City Council's Budget & Finance Committee, on Monday, reviewed the City Attorney's most recent version of the proposed Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) Ordinance, punching holes in it and sending it back to the City Attorney for repairs.

"This ordinance is half-baked!" declared Councilman Bill Rosendahl as he scoffed at the notion that he should even review a draft ordinance that was only released to the public two hours before the commencement of the meeting. He added that the fact that the ACE ordinance pits neighbor against neighbor is a huge flaw and that a complaint driven process lacks a commitment to standards.

Councilman Englander punched budget holes in the draft ordinance, pointing out that it lacks any measure of cost estimate, metrics for evaluating success, and that it is disguised as a pilot program when in fact it is a "phased-in implementation."

Councilman Parks gave a list of specific instructions to the City Attorney's office, calling for clarification of the subpoena authority, a definition of the administrative officers, a real cost analysis, clarity of the need for positive ID requirement for those cited, a plan for collecting fines that comes from the Office of Finance, information on LAPD overtime commitments and costs for testimony at hearings, a list of violations to be included in the pilot program, and the impact on parallel programs such as the pending signage ordinance.

Councilman Koretz gave the revised draft of the proposed ACE ordinance one last attempt at resuscitation, explaining that this was simply an opening move and that all financial responsibility was the City Attorney's, a claim that was rejected by Pedro Echeverria, Chief Assistant City Attorney.

Councilman Cardenas was quiet, offering no words in favor of the proposed ACE ordinance, standing by as the Budget & Finance Committee called on the City Attorney to report back in 30 days with answers to their many questions and on the CLA to conduct community hearings and outreach on the draft ACE Ordinance.

The standing-room-only crowd consisted of property owners, landlords, and tenants, predominantly in agreement (4 to 1) that the ordinance has many flaws. Noel Weiss referred to the CA's ACE proposal as "so incredibly and poorly drafted that it defies belief. It is an embarrassment to the City Attorney's Office because it constitutes both legal malpractice and political malpractice."

(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 .)

CityWatchLA - LADOT Puts the Pedal to the Metal on Speed Limits Increases

CityWatch, Jan 26, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 7

As the City of Los Angeles grapples with a financial crisis of epic proportions and the Departments within the city struggle with the triage that results from the impending induced exodus of approximately 3000 employees, the Department of Transportation gallantly marches forward, continuing the good work of raising speed limits and removing crosswalks, all in an effort to make our streets safer and more effective for motorists. It's been a while since the last flurry of speed limit increases made their way through the City Hall meat grinder that regularly sees speed limit increase proposals head from the Department of Transportation to the LAPD to the local Councilmembers to the City Attorney to the Transportation Commission to the Transportation Committee and then to the City Council where the rubber stamping concludes with an ordinance proposal that raises the speed limit on a local street, all in an effort to maintain the right to use radar/laser speed limit violation enforcement on the streets of Los Angeles.

On Wednesday the City Council's Transportation Committee will consider speed limit increase proposals on Riverside Drive (up to 40 mph) and on Chandler Boulevard (up to 45 mph.)

These speed limit increase proposals are for streets that fall partially in Council District 2, newly minted City Councilman Paul Krekorian's district. Krekorian is the author of AB766, the Safe Streets bill that he took to the State Assembly last year when he served as Assemblyman for the 43rd District and in his role as the Assistant Majority Floor Leader for the State Assembly. Krekorian's Safe Streets bill saw the support of both Glendale and Burbank and also enjoyed the support of local community members, neighborhood councils and the cycling community.

Essentially, Krekorian argued that local communities should have more authority over the establishment of speed limits.

The City of Los Angeles gave quiet support to the Safe Streets Bill but when it came up in the State Assembly's Transportation Committee, the City of LA's LADOT representative in the room sat silent, as did the City of LA's legislative representative.

Their silence spoke volumes and served as a powerful contradiction to the LA City Council resolution passed in support of AB766.

As for the upcoming speed limit increase proposals, one of them is for a street that runs alongside the bike lanes that are part of the beginning of the Orange Line, a cycling commuter route from the Red Line station in NoHo that runs across the valley.

One would think that a major transit hub would be a great place to encourage alternative modes of transportation. But such is not the case.

The streets get wider, the speeds get faster, the environment gets more hospitable for motor vehicles and downright hostile for anybody who dares to walk, ride a bike or take mass transit.

As for the Transportation Committee, Chairman Bill Rosendahl has an opportunity to demonstrate that his stated commitment to making Los Angeles a more walkable and bikeable city is a real commitment that comes with action, not just talk.

It'll also be interesting to see what influence Councilman Paul Koretz of CD5 will have over the process, especially in light of his stated support for a robust Bike Plan that lays down a real vision for a bikeable city.

Will Koretz suggest that the Bike Plan be consulted and used as a guide for evaluating speed limits and street designations?

Inevitably, when the subject of speed limit increases come up, somebody launches into a long discussion of California Vehicle Code Section 40802(b) and the need to raise speed limits in order to justify enforcement of the speed limit by radar.

This tired monologue concludes with the explanation "Our hands are tied, we've got to raise the speed limits if we want to enforce the speed limit!"

I don't know when the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world rolled over and became so helpless but I'm not buying it. I believe that there are many things Los Angeles could be doing to control speeding motorists and to making our streets safer for everybody.

It's at this point in the repetitious debate over speed limits that I'm challenged to offer other solutions. I typically start by saying "Bulb-outs, speed tables and road diets!" and the resulting confused look on the faces of those I'm talking with tells me that the transportation experts who are in charge of our streets have one tool in the toolbox and it is 50 years old.

Our City is in the middle of a budget crisis. Why don't we put this energy into pursuing funding sources that would allow us to improve the quality of life on our streets, that would allow us to put people to work, that would allow us to work together to make Los Angeles a walkable, rideable, livable city that works for everybody. It's time to put down the old paradigm and to work together to make people a priority.

On Wednesday, tune in to City Phone at 2:00 pm (213-621-2489) and listen along to see if Transportation Chair Bill Rosendahl will take the lead in rejecting the proposed speed limits and if Councilman Paul Koretz will support him.

Councilman Richard Alarcon has already voiced his support for Krekorian's Safe Streets bill so it will be interesting to see if that translates into a "no" vote on the proposed speed limit increase.

Maybe Krekorian will show up to argue for Safe Streets.

Who knows, the LAPD might even show up to explain how public safety is one of their basic commitments and how increasing speed limits doesn't increase safety or save lives.

"See you on the Streets!"

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

CityWatchLA - Westwood NC Certified: Becomes LA’s 90th

CityWatch, Jan 22, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 6

When the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners convenes a neighborhood council certification hearing and hundreds of passionate community leaders show up in a standing room only crowd, there is only one course of action and that is to certify the NC and to give them the full support of the city family.

It took five and half hours of presentations, debate and public comment but in the end the Commission agreed, voting unanimously to certify the Westwood Neighborhood Council, making them the 90th active neighborhood council in the city of Los Angeles.



The evening wasn't without controversy and the opponents to the certification were vocal, well-organized, articulate and well-reasoned. But for all of the debate over procedural errors, organizational missteps, and outreach shortcomings, the one simple point they couldn't drive home was why the naysayers had the right to prevent community stakeholders from organizing a neighborhood council and volunteering their time to improve the quality of life in their community.

Ultimately, the simple right to be represented in the neighborhood council system held firm and the applicants prevailed.

Councilman Koretz kicked the proceedings off (Video) by stating that he supports neighborhood councils but then proceeded to qualify that support by calling for community consensus as the necessary foundation for a newly formed neighborhood council.

He referred to the significant polarization in the community as evidence that they weren't ready for a certified neighborhood council, arguing that mediation was required and that the formation of the WWNC should be the conclusion of the consensus building process.

I disagreed and argued that the formation of the Westwood Neighborhood Council is the appropriate beginning of the journey, not the end, and that the process of involving the community, of engaging the many voices and the different perspectives is best facilitated within the structure of a neighborhood council, not as a prerequisite for formation. Apparently BONC agreed.



The idea that civic engagement is dependent on consensus is a flawed paradigm for public participation and denies the true value to be found in spirited discourse in the open marketplace of ideas.

If nothing else, the neighborhood council system is to be credited with stirring period debates over the tyranny of the majority vs. the veto power of the minority.

The public wins in discussions that educate, engage, and ultimately empower the community and it was refreshing to see hundreds of people engaged in a debate over their right to volunteer their time, to organize, and to work together to improve the quality of life in their community.

Speaking in support of the Westwood NC were community leaders from all over the city, demonstrating that as much as each community is unique, they all have a lot in common including the need to work together in order to truly represent the people of Los Angeles.

To this end, seasoned veterans of the NC system from Sunland Tujunga to Coastal San Pedro offered their support as mentors to the Westwood Neighborhood Council.

The Board of Neighborhood Commissioners are to be credited for their stamina and their wisdom and especially for creating an environment that played host to passionate emotions, enthusiastic opinions, and spirited debate.

Board President Michele Siqueiros raised the bar on effective public hearings and proved that, in spite of a lack of consensus, the community can come together and take care of business fairly, diplomatically and effectively.

(Stephen Box is a well known and long-time grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net )