LA’s Secret Meeting Habit: Contempt and Arrogance or Just Bureaucratic Malpractice?

CityWatch, Feb 3, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 10

RETHINKING LA - We, the people, have the right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies yet our elected officials regularly violate this right, creating obstacles to public attendance, participation, and free speech.

This behavior may be due to simple ignorance, although it is hard to believe that elected officials, some having been in public service for more than three decades, are still unaware of the Bill of Rights or the Brown Act.
Two days ago, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission was taken to task for convening the body without proper notice to the public of the meeting or its agenda, a violation of California’s Brown Act, also known as the Open Meeting Law.

The meeting was cancelled abruptly, prompting Commissioner Bernard Parks to chastise the Coliseum Interim General Manager John Sandbrook for allowing the meeting to take place without letting the Commission know that simply participating in the meeting could be a violation of the law.

One might suggest that the Brown Act violation is the least of the Commission’s worries, coming on the heels of charges that the Commission has been engaged in secret sessions that address a proposal to give operational control of the financially floundering stadium to USC.

This casualness with the law comes on the heels of the recent revelation that Coliseum officials have given over a million dollars in cash to a union official who was then responsible for the wages of the Coliseum stagehands, all with no oversight and accountability for appropriate taxes, insurance, and benefits.

As the US Labor Department and the District Attorney investigate this and other operational and financial irregularities, the Commissioners fall back on the favorite legal defense of elected officials, “I had no idea!”

LA County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky exclaimed "I was never made privy to, nor informed of, financial statements of any kind that documented any cash payments to anyone."

Whew!

Zev was recently in the news for his attempt, in his new role as the Chair of the LA County Board of Supervisors, to limit public comment during Board sessions, a move that violates the Brown Act and demonstrates his contempt for public participation and free speech.

Keep in mind that Coliseum audits tend to follow media inquiries, demonstrating the value of public participation in the process and transparency in the management of public assets.

As for the Board of Supervisors, Zev recently introduced a motion to revise the rules in order to “improve the way Board meetings are conducted.” If approved, the new rules of order would mean simply participating in the Board meetings could be a violation of the law.

Open Meeting advocates, from the League of Women Voters to Bob Blue, pointed out that the public can’t be limited to general comments but have the right to comment on agenda items as they come up. They also pointed out that the proposed requirement to require speakers to provide their names and addresses also violates the law.

The open and transparent attempt to violate the Brown Act can only be attributed to contempt of the public, arrogant hubris, or complete and thorough ignorance of the law.

Whatever the explanation, it speaks volumes for the environment of neglect that has allowed the Coliseum to flounder while management paid their own companies to provide services and collected compensation from other Coliseum vendors, all while delivering suitcases of cash to the local union.

Typically, when officials such as the LA County Board of Supervisors or LA’s City Council are sworn in, the oath of office starts with a commitment to uphold the law of the land. Yet when it includes allowing the public to criticize them or to watch them engage in the public’s business, this oath falls by the wayside.

Miki Jackson and John Walsh recently went to LA’s City Council to speak during public comment on the demise of the CRA, an occasion that drew speakers from all perspectives and offered the City of LA an opportunity to participate in a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The City Council’s Sgt. at Arms, a sworn peace officer in uniform and armed with a gun, informed Jackson and Walsh that they couldn’t hold a sign while they were speaking nor could they even sit in chambers while in possession of the sign.

This violation of the 1st Amendment took place and as Jackson and Walsh left chambers, a member of the City Attorney’s office chased them down and urged them to return, demonstrating that somebody in chambers was familiar with the Bill of Rights guarantee of Free Speech and the Brown Act guarantee that criticism is a form of public comment.

This isn’t the first time that the City Attorney’s office has jumped to protect its client from violating the law.

Simply attending Council, Committee, and Commission meetings typically includes a demand for identification in violation of the Brown Act which guarantees open meetings and the right to participate without identification restrictions. (for those who worry about security issues, go visit the state capital. There is still security screening, they simply don’t require you to identify yourself)

The DWP Commission was well into its agenda when a member of the public entered to announce that the meeting was talking place in violation of the Brown Act because security was restricting access. The City Attorney’s representative jumped to his feet and acknowledged that the DWP’s policy of requiring identification was a violation of State law.

For those that question the significance of a simple ID violation, consider that the public agencies and authorities who are cavalier about such specifics are demonstrating a casualness with the law that typically reflects additional and deeper inappropriate or illegal behavior.

A member of City Planning recently stood next to a member of City Hall’s General Services Police Department and blocked entrance to a meeting of a Brown Act governed body to anyone who didn’t show identification. The city employee assured the public that they were trained in Brown Act rules and city staff reiterated their refusal to allow members of the public to attend or participate in the meeting until they produced identification.

This obstinate behavior, even when confronted by the law, speaks volumes to the uphill battle that the public faces when challenging plans, proposals, policies, codes, laws, and other actions that our elected officials and public employees advance on our behalf without our participation or approval.

The City Planning employee committed a misdemeanor, prosecutable because it took place in the presence of a sworn law enforcement officer. Typically, Brown Act violations require a claim of violation and a “demand for cure” which amounts to a do-over of the meeting or agenda item in question.

LA’s Police Commission also demonstrates a cavalier attitude to the Brown Act, either out of ignorance or arrogance, either way a bad sign for the body that purports to have oversight and accountability for the LAPD as it engages in the business of upholding the law.

Whether it’s your 1st Amendment fight to free speech or your Brown Act right to receive notice of meetings, speak in public, review documents before they are acted on, and simply witness the proceedings without hassle, the City of LA and the County of LA are far from a tradition of compliance.

Whether or not you care about the inner machinations of Coliseum management or the demise of the CRA or the details of Brown Act guarantees to open meetings, it’s important that you stand up for those that do.

Whether or not you care about access to City Planning or the DWP Commission or the Police Commission or any of the bodies that act on your behalf, it’s important that you stand up for those that do.

If you care about accountability in our government, it is imperative that you demand that those who are conducting the people’s business abide by the law, in everything they do.

When our elected officials violate the Bill of Rights and California State Law, they have violated their oath of office and clearly demonstrated that they are unfit to serve.

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

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky talks back

Gadfly Arnold Sachs says he likes to "annoy the board"
by speaking on every agenda item. Photo by Daily News

A public comment of my own

January 24, 2012

For the past several weeks, a lot has been said and written about my proposal to modify the amount of time each member of the public is allotted for comment during our weekly Board of Supervisors meetings.

Unfortunately, much of that discussion has lacked balance, context and, at times, accuracy, thus serving mostly to misinform people about what I’d hoped to achieve upon becoming the board’s chairman in December. As a result, the prevailing narrative has become this: we on the Board of Supervisors believe that when it comes to our meetings, the public should be neither seen nor heard.

The most recent example of this was a lengthy story in Saturday’s Los Angeles Times. Appearing on the front page, it flatly and wrongly asserted that I think “members of the public talk too much” and mischaracterized fundamental elements of the proposal. Inexplicably, I was never asked for my comment, even though the piece was aimed squarely at me. Had I been asked to do so, readers would have come away with a fuller understanding of the issue.

The truth is I wish we had more public engagement. Our huge hearing room is often empty, despite the breadth and enormity of matters the board confronts every week. In this regard, we are not alone. Visit City Hall and you’ll find much the same. Recent coverage would have you believe that we want to yank the microphone on a public that’s clamoring to be heard. This is not the case.

Most weeks, the same tiny cadre of individuals speak on a multitude of agenda items—sometimes dozens of them in a single meeting. Under the current practice, they’re allowed to talk for two minutes on each item and then can speak for an additional three minutes at the end of the meeting on non-agenda matters. One of these so-called gadflies admitted to a Daily News reporter recently that he had signed up to talk on every agenda item simply to “annoy the board.”

Of course, this is his right—as it is the right of another of our regular speakers to participate in this weekly spectacle by repeatedly delivering the same racially-tinged diatribe against undocumented immigrants and reciting the names and addresses of those she alleges, without evidence, of being “gangbangers.”

But under California’s Ralph M. Brown Act, it’s also the right of government bodies to impose reasonable limits on public comment as a way to ensure a healthy balance among all stakeholders in the meeting process. All our local legislative bodies have rules to this effect, including the Los Angeles City Council. In this spirit, and at the suggestion of our County Counsel, I proposed that our rules be modified to give speakers a three-minute block to discuss their agenda items—rather than two minutes for each one—and two minutes at the end of the meeting for general comment.

While this might be a tight squeeze for the small number of gadflies bent on testifying about virtually every matter before us each week, we considered it a fair policy for the vast majority of people who, in good faith, take time out of their days to travel downtown and speak on the one or two issues that directly affect their lives.

Now, we’ve put the proposed changes on hold so that our county attorneys have time to correct misperceptions and explain the board’s motivation to concerned stakeholders as we move forward.
For those of you who’ve followed my time in public life, you know that I’ve been a consistently strong advocate of government transparency—a record that includes, among other things, my successful push to make board meetings available to a wider audience by having them webcast, televised and posted online with transcripts. As some of you may also remember, I authored Los Angeles’ first freedom of information act while serving on the City Council.

So I encourage you to join me at a Tuesday Board of Supervisors meeting and see for yourself what all the controversy is about. You be the judge. Take it from me, you can’t trust everything you read.

Posted 1/24/12

Can Wendy Greuel Run on Her Record?

CityWatch, Aug 16, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 65

RETHINKING LA - LA’s 2013 Mayoral Race is barely underway and already City Controller Wendy Greuel has declared herself the leader of the pack based on her ability to raise campaign funds.

Of the declared candidates, Greuel has surged ahead with a war chest of $518,000 while City Councilwoman Jan Perry has collected $457,000, investment banker and former Deputy Mayor Austin Beutner reports $405,000, and attorney and conservative radio talk show host Kevin James has amassed $91,000.
Given the City of LA’s dire budgetary straits, the ability to raise money is a valuable skill, one that would certainly demonstrate Mayoral chops, but only if consideration were given to the source of the money and the obligations that come with it. To that end, Kevin James ( http://www.kevinjamesformayor.com ) claims the high road, pointing out that his money comes from small donors, not the traditional power brokers, special interests, consultants and developers.

With County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, City Council President Eric Garcetti, and Developer Rick Caruso still on the sidelines, the promise of a hotly contested Mayoral race means that candidates will work overtime to control the conversation, shifting the topics to areas of comfort.

All Mayoral candidates will need to make their case as change agents, establishing a vision for the city, influencing the culture of City Hall, and wrangling the three dozen city departments together in the efficient delivery of city services.

For Greuel, this means avoiding at all costs a discussion of the LADOT and its performance under her oversight, first in her role as the Chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committee and more recently in her role as the City Controller.

Greuel will have to explain the LADOT’s track record for failure on Grant proposals, something that has been addressed in Metro Call for Projects, in Safe Routes to School Funding, in Highway Safety Improvement Project funding, and in its last-minute and unambitious approach to transportation engineering.

Several years ago, Greuel actually introduced a motion to the City Council directing the LADOT to communicate with the City Council on transportation funding, demonstrating her inability to overcome the LADOT’s culture of arrogance when it comes to working with others. Funding cycle after funding cycle, the LADOT would wait until the last minute and then release the proposals, using the impending deadline as an excuse for rejecting feedback and requests.

At another point in Greuel’s tenure, she discovered that the City of LA had no Strategic Transportation Plan, a structural deficiency that explained the LADOT’s lack of vision and proactive work. Much was made of the need for a Strategic Transportation Plan and its potential positive impact on funding, on implementation, and on efficiencies.

Greuel went so far as to schedule an all-day, one-topic City Council session to grapple with the need for a Strategic Transportation Plan, eventually funding a scheme the put consultants to work and the audience to sleep. Since then, the public tosses and turns but not much has changed.

During Greuel’s tour of duty as the Transportation Committee Chair, the City of LA raised speed limits with such regularity, local advocates were worn out protesting the semi-monthly hearings. Greuel’s Committee relied on a 50-year-old transportation philosophy and failed to utter even a whimper as speed limits were raised over and over again.

While LA was raising speed limits, Federal and State laws were going into effect that supported Complete Streets, engineered for pedestrians, cyclists, mass transit and motorists. Greuel could have embraced this shift in transportation philosophy, but she didn’t. Instead, the City of LA gets dragged, kicking and screaming, toward the future while the LADOT argues for its limitations.

There are three levels of City Departments in LA, the Proprietary Departments (Harbor, Airports, DWP), the Charter Departments (Police, Fire, Public Works, Library, Rec & Parks, Planning, DONE...), and the Ordinance Departments (Transportation, Building & Safety, Animal Services, Zoo, General Services, etc).

The Proprietary Departments typically have their own revenue, budgets, law enforcement and gravitational pull. Any potential Mayoral candidate will need to demonstrate the power to control these departments.

The Charter Departments were created by City Charter and their existence is codified by law, amendable by referendum, and sometimes funded by mandated budgets. They exist to deliver city services to the people of LA and any strong Mayoral candidate will need to demonstrate the power to support efficient performance.

The Ordinance Departments were created by City Council action, put into existence to perform a specific function, and they cease to exist with the same simple process. The LADOT was created in 1979 to coordinate “the City’s various ground transportation and ground transportation-related activities.”

The LADOT is Greuel’s Achilles heel, the Ordinance Department that has defied her leadership and maintained its course, even when she moved from the City Council and was elected as LA’s City Controller.

Armed with a completely new level of authority, Greuel now had the opportunity to move from Transportation philosophy and into oversight of the LADOT’s budget. This should have been a smooth transition, after all, Greuel had served on the City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee, giving her a unique insight into the machinations of the city departments when it comes to protecting budgets and headcounts while avoiding accountability and charges of double-dipping.

Unfortunately, Greuel’s performance was limited to press conference audits that chipped at the tip of the iceberg but that failed to address the larger pattern of contempt and misconduct.

As the City of LA put a freeze on staff travel, the LADOT continued to export PowerPoint presentations to communities far and wide, as if the city with the worst traffic congestion is in a position to advise others on transportation. Did Greuel catch it?

When one of the largest funding streams of the generation, Measure R, came into play, the LADOT presented a budget for LA’s “Local Benefit” share of the Countywide half-cent sales tax revenue, taking a little extra from the cyclists and pedestrians and shifting it over to LADOT administration. LADOT proposed $10.8 million for bike and ped projects instead of $18.1 million, a “mistake” of $7.3 million. Did Greuel catch it?

As the LADOT took its turn before the City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee earlier this year, Bernard Parks took the Department to task for spending Measure R money on staff instead of projects. As the people of LA ask “Where are our Measure R ‘Local Benefit’ projects?” the LADOT is busy spending the money on staff. Did Greuel catch it?

Most recently, the LADOT went to City Hall to ask for overtime pay in order to implement the Bike Lanes and Sharrows that are part of the Mayor’s commitment to making LA a great place to ride. How can it take overtime to do the work? If it were extra work, perhaps it would require extra staffing, but the City of LA has been collecting millions of dollars for Bikeway projects for years. Where did the money go? Did Greuel catch it?

To be fair, Greuel has audited the LADOT and she has come up with some pretty damning reports.

The LADOT is charged with wasting $855,000 outright while going over budget by nearly $2.5 million on a contract to equip parking enforcement vehicles with GPS systems, of course, the LADOT argued that it took place under previous management.

The LADOT is charged with failing to collect on parking tickets, a pattern of casualness that costs the City of LA $5.4 million in revenue, according to Greuel.

The LADOT is charged with a failure to maintain an inventory of parking meters, a problem that makes it impossible to evaluate the LADOT’s performance. Greuel contends that the City of LA owns 36,000 parking meters but that the LADOT must put “controls in place to adequately ensure collections are being made from all parking meters, and those meter payments are being deposited directly into the city’s bank accounts.”

Greuel also took the LADOT to task for its Gold Card Desk, a program that fixed tickets for City Hall insiders. Of course that audit backfired when Greuel’s Council office was accused by the Mayor’s office as being a participant, a charge that was denied by Greuel. Either way, it turned out to be a tough row to hoe, either the Gold Card Desk existed and functioned as an insider ticket fixing program and Greuel was ignorant or it existed and Greuel was a participant.

The audits are a sign of activity, but it’s important that Greuel do more than stand by and yell “Fire!”

The LADOT is still on course, moving forward in its traditional cavalier manner. It continues to fumble outreach, it remains focused on staff levels while avoiding performance standards, and it continues to reject neighborhood council requests, using the classic “Contact the Mayor's office and Council office. This is due to the budget that has been adopted by them.”

Wendy Greuel is an energetic campaigner and her track record for raising funds speaks volumes to her ability to connect with her audiences.

But if she wants to be taken seriously as a change agent, a Mayoral candidate that possesses the ability to turn a city around, it is imperative that she start right now by following through with the department that has been her responsibility for almost a decade, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation.

For Mayoral Candidate Wendy Greuel, the LADOT is where the rubber hits the road.

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

CityWatchLA - City Planning Chief: From ‘Keeper of the Vision’ to ‘Merchant of Exceptions’

CityWatch, May 13, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 38

It was a shotgun wedding, Mayor Villaraigosa stood alongside Michael LoGrande as First Deputy Mayor Austin Beutner officiated, proclaiming “There’s no further need to conduct a search!” and then introducing the happy couple as Mayor and City Planning General Manager.

LoGrande was tapped to replace Gail Goldberg as the head of City Planning, a move that demonstrated the Mayor’s commitment to moving forward on the 12-2 program in an effort to speed up development.

Critics dismissed the action as a misguided “out with the planner, in with the expeditor” move that confirmed suspicions that City Hall belonged to the developers and the community was up for grabs.

Granted, there were some optimists who held hope that the move would translate into a more efficient department but they were outnumbered by pessimists who expressed fear that a more efficient department meant bad planning done faster, all of which was complemented by insiders who proclaimed “The Fixer is in!”

Nine months later, the City Planning Department has continued down the path of evisceration at the hands of the Mayor’s Budget Hawks and LoGrande has facilitated the move to cost recovery that has resulted in a department that is 75% funded through fees.

While some may look at this “cost recovery” scheme as fiscally responsible, it translates into an abdication of City Charter mandate and concludes the Planning Department’s transition from “keeper of the vision” to “merchant of exceptions.”

Land use and transportation issues are the stuff of legend, fracturing communities and dominating neighborhood civic engagement to the point of absurdity. Case by case debates over variances and exceptions that drag on and destroy trust in the process leave stakeholders distrustful and disenfranchised.

LoGrande had an opportunity and he took it, demonstrating with results that under the current planning process, good projects are nearly impossible and bad projects are highly profitable.

Some of the most active community planning advocates contend that LoGrande missed the real opportunity, one that would have required him to rally his department and fight for the funding necessary to really plan.

Critics refer to the disconnect between the elements of the General Plan and the Community Plans, the Specific Plans, the Master Plans, and the Vision Plans, all of which leave the battlefield of the community open to developers who can write 39,000 page documents as the bulldozers rev their engines and the public watches the circus come to town.

LoGrande had an opportunity to embrace technology and to actually connect real data with the direction that City Planning is headed but that failed to happen.

As the population declines, City Planning is braced to support further density, complete with antiquated code that results in empty lots on major boulevards, open parking lots that live on as protected use, huge developers that thrive while small developers go bankrupt, and a default attitude that allows the CRA to assume de facto Planning authority.

Yesterday’s Planning Commission hearing included a presentation that revealed 70% of the multi-unit development over the last several years consisted of projects that were 10 units or less. Yet the City of LA continues to punish (with codes of absurdity) small developers in favor of large “luxury living” developers who enjoy tax breaks and subsidies that result in housing in excess of demand for a market that doesn’t exist.

All this takes place while the middle class continues to get priced out of neighborhoods that locals refer to as “under siege” by developers who prey on communities by investing based on current zoning and then develop based on exceptions and variances that destroy the community and make a mockery of City Planning.

LoGrande has had nine months to demonstrate his convictions and his intentions. Based on results it appears that Bigger & Faster is his mantra and it is taking place at the expense of our city.

As Zev Yaroslavsky said at last week’s Citywide Alliance meeting, “This is not only a disaster for the people, the environment, and local neighborhoods, it's also a disaster for the builders. If the Rule of Law is gone, there is no stability and everyone suffers except for those who abuse the system.”

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

Transient Oriented Development (TOD)

The W Hollywood Hotel & Residences, perched atop the Metro's Hollywood & Vine Red Line Station, has simultaneously raised the curtain and lowered the standard, establishing itself as LA's largest Transient Oriented Development (TOD) complete with a public plaza that offers convenient single serving drug sales, discrete nooks for defecation and urination, secure yet public overnight sidewalk accommodations, and a popular valet-adjacent vomitorium. Let there be no mistake, when it comes to the creation of great public space, the W Hollywood turns its back and runs.

The inadvertent pursuit of the Transient Oriented Development (TOD) title over the more highly sought after Transit Oriented Development (TOD) status is just one of the many miscommunications and misunderstandings that have occurred during the long and contentious W Hollywood development process.

Gatehouse Capital and Legacy Partners have spent over a decade developing the land owned by the Metro. Along the way they engaged in a journey that City Council President Eric Garcetti referred to as "sometimes painful, but worth the effort." (wait until he sees the vomitorium!) Jeff Cohen, Chief Operating Officer of Gatehouse, agreed with Garcetti and said the process he went through was "not for the faint of heart."

Hollywood Chamber of Commerce President Leron Gubler rises above the fray and simply states that the W Hollywood was developed with a unique "local focus" in mind and a commitment to alleviating congestion, explaining "That’s why the project is right next to an MTA subway stop."

All of which prompts me to suggest that Eric and Jeff and Leron hop on their bikes and pedal over to the "local focus" Transient Oriented Development known as the W and join me in looking for the bike parking. There are directional signs, three of them, alerting the public to the bike parking. There just isn't any bike parking.

This is a problem for several reasons:

1) Failure to deliver on the TOD promise: This is a $600 million Transit Oriented Development, funded with significant amounts of your (the public's) money on land owned by you (the public). The TOD promise comes with assurances that the project will cater to cyclists and pedestrians and that it will have a positive impact on the community, creating human density and offering opportunities to live, to work, to shop and to socialize, all without having to further congest the streets with private motor vehicles.

2) Lack of Metro oversight and accountability: Evidently the Metro's Bike Planning Department was unaware of the decade long development process that went into bringing the W Hollywood to the ribbon cutting ceremony. Apparently the Metro staff didn't get invited to the ribbon cutting ceremony and were unaware that the project has passed the finish line, leaving behind a public plaza at the Hollywood & Vine Metro Station that is the responsibility of...nobody!

3) Lowers the standard for future TOD projects: This is the largest TOD in Los Angeles and there will be more. Now is the time to raise the bar and to engage in development that is so brilliant that it causes those around the world to covet and envy, not to giggle and mock. When the City Council, the CRA, the Chamber of Commerce, the BID, the Metro, the LADOT, the LAPD, the LASD, and the Federal Government all get together, one would think two things would happen.

* Real leaders would rise to the occasion and create powerful and effective teamwork.
Unfortunately, the public hears nothing but the difficulty of working with so many agencies and authorities. This is a cry for leadership.

* Real innovators would rise to the occasion and create a world class Transit Oriented Development.
Unfortunately, the public hears nothing but the limitations of scale with so many details to be resolved. This is a cry for innovation.

4) Demonstrates a lack of standards: Whether it's the simple process of deciding in advance who sits at the big table and who waits until the ribbon cutting to get a shot at the scraps or whether it's deciding in advance what the design standards are for TOD, this project is a scream for attention. Cyclists and pedestrians are the user group that is to be considered from the beginning of the project conception, not after the project delivery. Simple access and accommodation standards are given to the designers and architects in advance, not squeezed in after construction. Does the Metro and the City of Los Angeles have those standards? If yes, why weren't they implemented? If not, develop and implement them immediately before engaging in any more missteps.

5) When this many authorities working with this much money use "I assumed!" as an operating mantra, it borders on professional negligence. The details matter. They are significant. They are the telltale whisps of smoke that indicate a much larger problem, one that may not surface for some time. But they are significant and one can only wonder, "What else was completely overlooked?"

6) Bike parking should be visible to those who ride by. It should reinforce that this is a rideable community. It should reinforce that cyclists are welcome on the Metro, whether they leave their bikes secured at the stations or take them on the train or bus. It should be visible so that the community's eyes are on the cyclists and their bikes. It should reinforce that bikes are an integral part of the Metro's commitment to a robust and comprehensive Transportation System. It should be part of the basic foundation of accommodation, not an afterthought that comes up when everything else is done.

7) Public Space should encourage good behavior! As we gathered for a site survey, it was apparent that wherever we stood, we were in the way. Great public space isn't just open, it's designed to foster social interaction, yet the benches here are fixed and allow people to sit back to back but not to face each other. Where do people "hang out" and relax? Where do couples or small groups sit and chat? The Metro's Hollywood & Vine open space attracts transients and discourages community. Tough charge, backed up by reality. What looks good on paper doesn't always translate into reality. Environmental architecture is not simply positioning a "rain forest" to the east and specifying bamboo for the planter, it is "designing for good behavior," a standard that applies to all disciplines, from law enforcement to transportation to development to hospitality.

Twelve days ago, I called Lynne Goldsmith, Metro's Bike Planning Manager, to report that the W Hollywood had made it past the ribbon cutting and still the Metro hadn't installed any bike racks. She explained that the Metro has big plans, but that the bike racks wouldn't be installed until later in the year when the Metro "programmed" the small room off to the side of the rest rooms, next to the elevator. I pointed out that the W Hollywood has been in development for a decade and asked how the Metro could justify waiting until after the opening to begin thinking about "Where do the cyclists fit?"

(Goldsmith's promise should be tempered with the knowledge that the Metro's Hollywood & Western Red Line Station also has a room set aside for bike parking. At one time it even had racks stored in it, now gone, and the room is still empty years after the development was built, with your money!)

Goldsmith told me how busy she was and suggested that I call Greg Angelo, Director of New Business Development in the Metro's Real Estate Department. We chatted, he suggested that I talk to Goldsmith. I pointed out that she said she had no authority and had sent me to him. I offered my opinion on the "little room of urine" that was the current plan and pointed out that it violated basic Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards. He became a bit argumentative and told me that I can't complain of a deficiency without proposing the solution. I proposed that the new deficiency was a failure to perform and that the solution was for him to join me for a site survey and to take responsibility for doing his job. We were off to a great start.

One of the simplest and snarkiest solutions to the criticisms of the public is to demand that all interaction be solution-oriented. This closes down feedback and deprives people from participating in the "discovery" process that is part of real innovation. The solution may not be present as the problem is experienced but that should not discourage people from yelling "Fire!" when they see a fire. Angelo seems to think that the solution that eluded the Metro for years is my responsibility for identifying during the process of pointing out that the Hollywood & Vermont Red Line Station is lacking Metro oversight and accountability. The new rest rooms have never seen paper supplies. The bike parking signs are up, the bike parking isn't. He didn't know that until I called. I've already earned my keep, he hasn't.

It gets worse.

I get an invitation to a site survey at the Metro's Hollywood & Vine Red Line Station. Then I received an amended invitation moving it out an additional day. No request of availability or convenience, after all, the public is always available to complain, but it's the Metro staff's time that is valuable. Still, I'm pleased that the meeting will take place and I simply adjust my schedule, pleased that Goldsmith and Angelo and others from the Metro will be joining me for a survey of the Metro station.

Tuesday arrives and I lock my bike up to a light pole on the public plaza. I'm joined by Ron Durgin of Sustainable Streets and Enci of illuminateLA, both of whom take a one hour survey of the W Hollywood Hotel &; Residences with me. When we return to the small empty room off to the side of the elevator, we find Lieutenant George Grein, Retired, of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. He has just interrupted a drug deal in the future home of the Metro's safe, secure, and effective Hollywood & Vine bike parking. We are later joined by Sergeant Cliff Yates of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department who is the supervisor for this area of the Metro. Both Grein and Yates concur that isolation and seclusion are bad ideas for bike parking and that the evidence of human waste, transient accommodations, and drug activity would support my contention that the bike parking should be located elsewhere.

Goldsmith and her assistant, Tony Jusay, arrived and seemed to have a hard time letting go of the little room as a bike parking solution without having another option to grab. Since we were still standing in the little room, I offered that there may be many solutions but it is imperative that we agree that the little room was not one of them. At this point, Goldsmith engaged in displacement activity that had her cleaning the broken baby carriage, the floor mat, the newspapers, the barricades, and the debris, all as we watched and wondered how this moved the site survey forward. Jusay was able to get her to return to the discussion.

Ben Cien, Vice President of Construction and Design at Gatehouse arrived and we now had a fairly robust discussion going, all of it focused on the little room of horrors. All that was missing was somebody from the Metro who had the authority to say "Yes!" Apparently Angelo was unable to make the meeting, too busy to even communicate with the group or to offer an alternative meeting time. Too bad because the resulting two hour survey was then an exercise in "Who's in charge?"

Cien explained that he thought "everybody had signed off on the plan to install a little door" and to make the now "open and secluded little room" into an eventually "secured and secluded little room."

The LASD representatives stayed out of the fray, the cycling representatives argued vehemently against bike parking that requires security cameras and security officers, neither of which are in place, in order to be safe. Both Cien and Goldsmith offered arguments that the camera monitoring and the close proximity of the W Hollywood security would make the environment safe. (Hence the drug deal and the human waste and the evidence of overnight accommodations!)

The cyclists walked the larger facility with Cien, a pleasant host who seemed proud of the many W Hollywood elements. He was comfortable in his skin, greeting guests and staff as we walked through the hotel, the back hallways, the sidewalks, and the parking garage. We chatted about the project including the LEED elements and even offered up that if the employees of the W Hollywood were offered Urban Cycling classes, they would be more likely to ride their bikes to work, take advantage of the employee dressing rooms and bike parking. (there were three large bike racks in the employee parking area of the garage but only one bike)

We measured off some public plaza space as options for bike parking, having arrived prepared to actually survey. We offered some criteria for the eventual solution including visible, close to the entrance, secure, protected with a canopy or cove, out of the passageway, and we looked for opportunities. Essentially, the bike parking must work for the casual cyclist who arrives for the first time, no membership card for a "bike room" or other pre-arranged bike parking. Simple racks that a casual visitor would feel comfortable using and that would serve as secure and effective bike parking. It starts there, not with the VIP program that requires registering, a key card, a membership, and a visit to One Gateway.

Goldsmith had prepared for the meeting by packing a large bag of "That's not possible!" and suggestions such as a canopy or moving the planter or doing anything other than using the little room was met with "That's not possible!" Since she can't say yes and she has no plan and she isn't prepared and she hasn't asked, how does she know the answer will be "No!"

I'm not sure how this project turned into such an environment of limitations but somehow Lynne Goldsmith's contribution to the two hour bike parking survey was a series of "No!" responses to suggestions covering bike parking location, style, visibility, canopy, accessibility, and responsibility. Of course, when listening to Goldsmith speak authoritatively on limitations, from political to financial to social to environmental, I remind myself to never take a "No!" answer from somebody who doesn't also have the authority or power to say "Yes!"

The site survey ended with the obligatory confusion and lack of resolution over authority. The LASD typically is responsible for the Metro Station and the plaza area with the developer/property manager responsible for the actual development. Again, the ribbon has been cut and those at the meeting were unclear of who had authority and who maintained the rest rooms and who was in charge.

I'm not sure who is going to step up on this one. It might be County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky who also serves on the Metro Board. Perhaps Metro CEO Art Leahy will decide that the buck stops with him. Maybe Doug Failing, the Metro's Executive Director of Highways and Interim Director of Planning, or perhaps Roger Moliere, the Metro's Chief of Real Property Management & Development, will take a shot at solving the bike parking problem that has caused "paralysis of analysis" within the Metro's Bike Planning department. Angelo is already a no-show and Goldsmith is simply in charge of "No!"

This may seem like a lot of effort, all simply to get some bike racks installed on the public plaza on top of a Metro station at the new W Hollywood TOD but it's much much more.

This is the largest Transit Oriented Development in the City of Los Angeles. The $600 million that is invested in this TOD project came from many sources including you, the public. The Metro's budget comes from you, the public. A standard is being set, not just with the use of public funds, but with the implementation and design of TOD projects of which there will be more. In addition, the Metro is busy, working on the Expo and the Orange Line Extension. The mistakes they make will be repeated unless we work together to raise the bar. The Eastside extension has bike racks installed at Soto and at Mariachi Square. In both cases they need to be reinstalled correctly. That feedback doesn't come from the Metro, it comes from cyclists who care enough to insist on excellence.

Transit Oriented Development is the concept that was sold to the public. The Metro, Gatehouse Capital, Legacy Partners, the CRA, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Improvement District, the LA Department of Transportation, the LA Police Department, the LA Sheriff's Department, the Federal Government, CalPERS, and Deutsche Bank Berkshire Mortgage all have a piece of this project and it's a shame that we're still standing on the public plaza having a "Who's in charge?" discussion while the work remains incomplete.

For too long, the question "Is there any room left over for the cyclists?" has been the battle cry for the Metro's Bike Planning Department. This is the last time. Who is the person who will say 'Yes!" to bike parking at the Metro's Hollywood & Vine Station.