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

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.)

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 .) 

Separating LA City Attorney’s Duties is Essential

CityWatch, July 29, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 60

RETHINKING LA - The recent debate over the City Council’s legal representation and the City Attorney’s obligations under the City Charter have dramatized the shortcomings of the current conflicted system.

Some members of the City Council would like a City Attorney that is loyal to their needs and their desires, not an objective legal presence with the potential to thwart their machinations. Their position is supported by Sec. 271 of the City Charter which directs the City Attorney to “represent the City in all legal proceedings against the City” and to serve as “the legal advisor to the City, and to all City boards, departments, officers and entities.”

Some members of the public have argued that the City Attorney serves the people of Los Angeles by enforcing the law, not protecting those who violate the law. Their position is supported by Sec. 271 of the City Charter which says the City Attorney “shall prosecute on behalf of the people all criminal cases and related proceedings arising from violation of the provisions of the Charter and City ordinances, and all misdemeanor offenses arising from violation of the laws of the state occurring in the City.”

This City Charter mandate to both defend and to prosecute would not be a problem if the law was never broken and if the need to negotiate legal actions never came up but not a day goes by that the City Attorney isn’t required to straddle both sides of the legal fence.

During the City’s recent budget drama, Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter made much of this dichotomy of loyalties when he pointed out that the City Attorney’s office defended the City’s right to impose furloughs on City staff even as the union representing LA’s Deputy City Attorneys condemned the furloughs.

Further clouding the debate is the position of Barry Sanders, Recreation & Parks Commission President and retired partner from the Latham & Watkins law firm, who defended his “Government Speech” park advertising scheme with a third interpretation of the City Attorney’s responsibilities. Sanders took the City Attorney to task for raising issues of legality, claiming that the City Attorney’s responsibility is to support Commission actions by working to remove legal obstacles, not enforce them.

Sanders singlehandedly made the case for the creation of a City Prosecutor for the City of LA.

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

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

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

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

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

As the people of LA continue the fight to establish a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accountability (OPA), it is important to remember that oversight and accountability means little, if anything at all, without enforcement authority and a mandate for prosecution.

Grassroots advocates have fought hard to bring the issues of open and transparent governance into the marketplace of ideas. Progress has been made but the impending success will be hollow if we do not continue the journey.

If the residents of LA are to move forward from awareness and into the arena of performance and accountability, it is essential that they are supported by a City Prosecutor that has the budget, the professional expertise, the legal clout and the mandate to do a meaningful job of representing the people.

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

Forget the Budget Kabuki, How about City Budgeting Based on Performance?

CityWatch, May 10, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 37

City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee has proven so efficient at rubber-stamping the Mayor’s proposed budget that they recessed early. They apparently made sufficient noise as the City’s department chiefs paraded through council chambers in defense of their departments and their budgets.

Those speaking before the Committee tend to fall into one of three categories; those who completely fold and then overflow with gratitude for the privilege of maintaining their position as the head of an eviscerated department, those who accept the preordained but refuse to give it their blessing, and those who resist and call out the Mayor and City Council for their folly.

City Planning’s GM, Michael LoGrande, gave a category one performance, thanking anybody within thanking range and then accepting his fate, a loss for the people of LA who depend on a strong planning department as LA’s land-use debates continue to fracture communities.

Jon Kirk Mukri, General Manager of Recreation and Parks, represented the second category and came armed for battle and prepared for debate, but made no headway as the Mayor’s “cost-recovery” scheme continues to prey selectively on charter departments that deserve better.

William Carter of the City Attorney’s office, standing in for Carmen Trutanich, gave a fiery performance, calling out the budget as an abdication of responsibility, rejecting the budget cuts as short-sighted, and building a solid case for the value of his department.

On the whole, most department heads showed up ready to discuss departmental headcount, furlough impacts on staffing levels, and empty positions that needed to be filled. Few and far between were the discussions over intended performance, actual performance and proposed performance.

Demonstrating the difference a year can make, BongHwan (BH) Kim of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment did well in standing out from the crowd as he introduced DONE’s "Performance Dashboard" and spoke affirmatively of the past year and the upcoming year.

On the one hand, as the City of LA wallows in the budget crisis, it’s sad that the Committee spent so much time discussing neighborhood council stakeholder definitions and elections but it serves as a reminder that most people experience the $463 million budget gap on a personal level.

The proposal on the table for neighborhood councils was a 10% cut in funding (to $40,500 from $45,000) and the loss of rollover funds. Councilmen Koretz and Rosendahl made strong cases for protecting the encumbered funds, pointing out that many NC projects take years to complete and that the funding must be protected.

Other issues that came up were NC elections and the options that would allow councils to select boardmembers without having to spend millions of dollars as was the case with the City Clerk elections.

On the subject of elections, stakeholder definitions, by-law revisions, and funding options, Kim made two points; that much work was being performed by DONE in conjunction with NC Task Forces, and that CD2 (Paul Krekorian, Chair of the Education & Neighborhoods Committee) was working on the legislative revisions that are necessary for addressing structural issues.

The Mayor’s proposed budget was released to the City Council on April 20, and the Budget & Finance Committee took a week to review it before commencing with its Budget Hearings, a process that recessed several days early as enthusiasm faded and the opportunity to take on real structural change slipped away.

Budget & Finance is back at it today and tomorrow for a final polish and then presents it to the full City Council on Friday. Council has until June 1 to return the proposed budget with any recommended changes to the Mayor for the final stage of the approval process.

As the budget hearings fade into the sunset, neighborhood councils have a short amount of time to do three very important things; call your City Councilmember and speak up to protect rollover (encumbered but non-invoiced) funds, call DONE and give the GM encouragement if you like the direction he’s going, and start thinking now about which City Councilmember should head up the Education & Neighborhoods Committee when the City Council shuffles committee assignments in July.

Most importantly, speak up if you like the Performance Management style of departmental budget presentation, one where the year starts with projected performance. Department heads would be evaluated based on their goals and their accomplishments, their budgets would be set based on service commitments, not simply protecting headcounts.

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

CityWatchLA - When Rights and Privileges Get Mixed Up the People Lose

CityWatch, Aug 11, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 64

LA’s newly seated City Attorney, Carmen “Nuch” Trutanich, is hosting a City Attorney Neighborhood Forum at City Hall on Thursday and in an effort to demonstrate his unique approach to access, he has divided the public into two groups, those who get “free guest parking” and those who don’t.

It always comes down to the haves and the have-nots.

I won’t be there, of course. I didn’t qualify as one of LA’s “core-elite” and in a city that ranks your influence based on where you park your car, I can only imagine the inferior seating set aside for those who arrive by bicycle, or even worse, on foot or by mass transit. Of course, Nuch could have looked at Enrique Peñalosa’s work in Bogata, Columbia for inspiration on positioning equality in mobility as the foundation for a municipal government, a position that results in a reduction in crime, an increase in efficiency and a positive impact on the local economy, all while contributing to the overall health of the voters who put him in office.

Instead, Nuch continued down the congested road that positions motor vehicle parking space as the commodity that makes the wheels of this city move, the element of privilege that confirms position and power, the gift of public property that doesn’t show up on the audit trail and the City Hall welcome mat that keeps the insiders in and the outsiders out.

This may sound harsh, after all, we live in a city where “Officer, it was the strangest thing, I looked outside and there was a guy walking on my sidewalk!” is a legitimate “Broken Windows” call to the LAPD and ranks right up there with “All units! There are cyclists riding on the street!” as confirmation that there is something seriously wrong with the way LA moves people. At every turn, we reward bad transportation choices and then discourage good behavior, all the while complaining about our transportation system and traffic congestion.

Nuch is not unique in his commitment to the status quo and that’s the point. If he really wanted to come in and shake up City Hall and to communicate that there was a better way to engage the people, he could have simply started with public access based on equality of mobility. Instead he selected “free guest parking” as the battle cry.

How great would it have been if Nuch opened his reign with a commitment to the people of LA that City business would only take place in facilities that are open to those who walk, to those who use mass transit and to those who ride bikes. After all, this commitment is already made to those who arrive in motor vehicles, why not include the rest of the public?

Nuch is not alone in missing this opportunity.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the Patron Saint of Mass Transit, was recently scheduled to meet with the membership of GreenLA, an advocacy group made up of 100 of LA’s most active environmental organizations. The meeting was billed as “GreenLA Membership and the Mayor of LA” in a dialogue on LA’s green issues platform. Apparently transportation wasn’t one of the topics.

In a demonstration of disconnect, the meeting was scheduled to take place on the Westside, in an industrial area south of LAX. The venue is in an area so transit-proof that GreenLA first asked those with cars to offer carpools to other guests, then simply switched the location to a downtown facility, accessible to pedestrians, cyclists and those who use mass transit. Why, it even had accommodations for those who carpooled!

How is it that those who arrive by car are given special consideration on event notices, invitations and flyers, complete with information pointing out parking availability, detailing the location of the parking, noting any special reimbursement or validation details, and reinforcing the old and tired LA mantra, “You are what you drive” while those who employ alternative transportation are expected to figure it on their own.

Councilman Tom LaBonge recently invited Art Leahy, the new CEO of the Metro, to an evening town hall meeting to discuss LA’s Transportation System with the community. LaBonge chose Travel Town in Griffith Park as the venue, apparently unaware that the 96 is the closest bus and it stops running at 6pm. The Metro’s website indicates that there is no bus service from City Hall to Travel Town, it’s simply Metro inaccessible. Is the leadership of LA new to the city or just new to the idea of moving people in modes other than the automobile? The meeting was moved to another location, this time one with no bike racks. Small steps!

The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) is currently gearing up for the October Neighborhood Council Congress and in an effort to fan the flames of interest, a “save the date” flyer was sent out promising “Great People, Great Food and Free Parking!” No word on alternative transportation, no encouragement to walk, no info on mass transit, no directions to the bike racks. Nothing in that flyer communicates a commitment to equality as the standard for public access.

Our freedom to move is one of our most basic freedoms. In the political arena, access is one of the most basic elements of equality. To get harsh on the status quo of parking may seem...well...harsh.

But consider this, there are seven parking spaces in LA County for every car. The host of a public meeting that doesn’t accommodate those who arrive in single occupant vehicles faces severe criticism.

Council District 2 candidate Chris Essel demonstrated her commitment to the locals in CD2 by sending out an invitation to the “common folks” urging them to drop by her office on Ventura Blvd. The invitation indicates that the location is supported by “ample free parking on Ventura Blvd. in addition to valet parking on site.” No mention is made of buses such as the 150 or the 750, no mention is made of the available bike parking, no encouragement to do anything other than maintain the status quo, all the while complaining about traffic congestion!

Bravo to the CD2 Candidate who seizes this opportunity and fills the leadership vacuum, showing up at the next Candidate Forum on foot or who takes the Metro or who rides their bicycle or who shows up on a horse. Having a candidate show up in anything other that a single occupant motor vehicle would be a refreshing demonstration of a commitment to shaking up the way we move people and would certainly separate the doers from the talkers.

Of course, this may be a difficult leap for many but the least we can ask is that all candidates reinforce their commitment to access equality by noting on all campaign materials the information for peds, transit passengers and cyclists on a “favored nation” status with all motor vehicle parking and valet information for motorists. (By the way, if you’re going to reimburse or validate for parking, give out Metro tokens also!)

LA’s City Clerk has taken the lead on this standard and has established “mass transit accessible” as one of the criteria used for selecting locations for the upcoming Neighborhood Council elections.

Ultimately, if Los Angeles is going to become a Great City, it will be because mobility is positioned and supported as a basic human right. It will be because we work together to create a standard where public access includes the public as a whole, not simply those who arrive in a car. It will be because we define and respect our streets as public space.

“See you on the Streets!”

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