CityWatch, July 26, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 59
RETHINKING LA - The City of LA is almost one month into the first month of its 2011/2012 budget, a $6.9 billion behemoth that exceeds last year’s budget by $150 million and is the largest operating budget in the history of LA. The increase in LA’s budget is a quiet fact that was completely overshadowed by the City Hall budget drama of the last couple of years that has been used to justify significant cuts to city staff and services complemented by increases in fees, permits, fines, and penalties.
During the City Council’s contentious budget hearing earlier in the year, the heads of each city department appeared before the Budget & Finance Committee to defend their department, their staff, and their operating budget. One by one, from the offices of the City Controller and the City Attorney to the departments of Aging and Community Development, the City of LA’s org chart was shaken, squeezed and put through the budget wringer.
The public showed up to defend the city departments that were on the chopping block, arguing vehemently against cuts to the Police Department, the Fire Department, Recreation and Parks, Libraries, Cultural Affairs, Planning, and the many others that deliver the public safety and quality of life city services that Angelenos consider to be essential.
As the hearings progressed, the crowd thinned, and by the time the Neighborhood Councils were on the chopping block, the outcome was a fait accompli, resulting in a 10% reduction in annual budgets and the loss of all rollover funds. This action took place quietly and was complemented by the continued evisceration of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment.
Missing from the exchange was the deafening roar of support from the Police Department, the Fire Department, Recreation and Parks, Libraries, Cultural Affairs, Planning or any of the other departments who enjoyed the support of the neighborhood councils as they defended their budgets and their mandates.
The budget dust settled, neighborhood councils went back to work, rollover funds were swept and the new $40,500 annual budgets were allocated in order to fulfill their City Charter mandated mission “to promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”
All of a sudden, the City Family rediscovered their affection for neighborhood councils and department heads came courting their budget buddies, demonstrating the fact that self-preservation has no boundaries.
In a city with a $6.9 billion operating budget, it’s an incredible demonstration of bold egocentrism that motivates a manager of a billion dollar department to ask neighborhood councils for a share of their meager pittance, a reward that can hardly be worth the manager’s time.
And yet the city family sharks circle the neighborhood councils, asking for money to pay for equipment and services that should be paid for with their own budgets.
The city’s budget grew by approximately $150 million this past year, money that funds the delivery of city services that include public safety and public works. Neighborhood councils collectively account for less than $4 million of the city’s $6.9 billion budget, a number that pales in comparison to the $1.2 billion Police Department budget or the $480 million Fire Department budget or the $133 million Transportation budget.
In spite of their limited funds, neighborhood councils still find a way to support the LAPD with volunteers and funding, they still find a way to train and equip volunteers for the LAFD, they continue to pay to clean streets, to pull weeds from sidewalks, to empty trash, to remove graffiti, and they continue to fund median strip improvements, speed humps, Sharrows, and planning outreach.
But, along the way, the burden of that $40,500 budget has distracted the neighborhood councils from their mandate of advising the City of LA on the delivery of City Services and has allowed then to assume responsibility for funding the departments that should be answering to the neighborhood councils.
There is something absurd about the largest departments within the city family shaking down the smallest members. Any financial benefit to the larger department is surely negligible relative to the time and energy it takes to accomplish but the process also reverses the roles, given that neighborhood councils should actually be advising the city departments on their budgets and operations. After all, it’s the City Charter mandate.
The larger absurdity is that City of LA department managers can find the time to chase funds from one pocket to another, foregoing the larger opportunity to perhaps engage in the efficient operation of their department or, even bolder, look for opportunities to engage the public in roles of oversight.
But if the City of Los Angeles is to consider the departmental shake-downs of neighborhood councils appropriate shuffling of city funds, there should be some protocols in place, rules that govern the transference of neighborhood council funds to the operating budgets of city departments:
1) Neighborhood Councils funding should be limited to City Departments that stood up for the neighborhood councils during the City of LA’s Budget Hearings and defended the volunteers who work so hard to fulfill their City Charter mandate of engaging the public in monitoring the delivery of City Services. When the General Managers and Directors of LA’s Departments and Bureaus stand side by side with neighborhood councils as partners, they should feel free to solicit funds for their departments.
2) Neighborhood Councils funding should be limited to City Departments that have Commissions with a seat that is set aside for Neighborhood Council representation. When the Police Commission has an NC seat, the LAPD should feel free to solicit funds for their equipment. When the Rec & Parks Commission opens up an NC seat, RAP should feel free to solicit funds for their programs.
3) Neighborhood Councils funding should be limited to departments that entertain reciprocal requests for funding and services. Of course, this is the way things were supposed to be before they were flipped, one where the neighborhood councils advised the city on the delivery of city services and the departments were actually responsive to the local priorities.
The absurdity of the biggest of the big going after the smallest of the small in order to fund services and supplies is predatory and does nothing to advance LA but simply allows the departments to consume the host.
The missed opportunity through all of this is for the City Family to take its collective eyes of the budgets of other departments and to focus on outside revenue sources that require community support as a key element in qualifying and implementing federal and state money that would go much further in funding city services.
Neighborhood councils are in an ideal position to serve as the funding partners on Office of Traffic Safety funding that would go directly to LAPD staffing and services. The impact of an OTS grant is much more significant that any NC contribution to LAPD office supplies.
Neighborhood councils are best equipped to conduct the outreach necessary to qualify for funds such as the CA Statewide Park Program that funded the creation of parks in underserved communities. The impact of a $5 million grant far outweighs the negligible benefit of a neighborhood council contribution for RAP outreach materials.
Neighborhood councils are perfect partners for the Transportation Department as the City of LA goes after Safe Routes to School funding, money that can be put to work improving the sidewalks and streets of our neighborhoods. The impact of proactive teamwork has the potential to deliver millions of dollars to our streets which far outperforms the current meager contributions that are made in desperate attempts to “prime the pump” and motivate a reticent department.
It’s time that City Hall and the city departmental leadership recognize neighborhood councils as partners in engaging the public in the civic process, as partners in departmental oversight and accountability, and as partners in great funding that supports the delivery of city services.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net.)
Showing posts with label alta planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alta planning. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
City Hall Sharks Circling Neighborhood Councils
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
CityWatchLA - NBC Universal Project: Example of All that’s Wrong with LA Planning Process
CityWatch, Mar 1, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 17
NBC Universal’s Evolution project is moving forward in a City of LA planning process that is a clear demonstration of all that is wrong with planning and land use policy in the City of Los Angeles. The developer driven process starts with an attack on the already low standards that purportedly protect the people of LA and then continue with exceptions and variances that result in a full assault on the local community.
Developer funded Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), traffic mitigation plans, and community benefit proposals all create a Kumbaya message that is in stark contrast to the simple reality; our infrastructure is collapsing, our streets are congested, emergency services are already challenged, and our environment is choking.
Through it all, the people we send to City Hall stand by and when pressured are only able to come up with one objection, “We need more time!”
NBC Universal’s Evolution project is positioned as an upgrade to existing film production facilities while the simple reality is this, it is the creation of a new residential community on a 391-acre property bordered by the LA River and the Hollywood Hills.
In support of the project comes a 39,000 page EIR, a document so large that it serves to highlight the implausible “hugeness” of the project that is being shoehorned into a patch of land, “all without expanding the current property.”
As Councilmember Tom LaBonge stood before the Planning Commission and asked for an extension of the hearing process until after the March 8 election, organizations from all directions stood by with well reasoned and researched commentary that falls on deaf ears.
The Studio City Neighborhood Council submitted a 98 page review (download pdf) of the Evolution project that comprehensively reviewed the project and concluded “The DEIR does not adequately address the impacts on the community from the proposed Project.” Anyone who has tried to navigate Barham during rush hour knows that the impact on the surrounding communities is already beyond capacity.
The Transit Coalition submitted an analysis (download pdf) of the Evolution project’s transit, bike, and pedestrian accessibility. It challenged the project’s claim of a modal shift away from private vehicles and called for “important modifications to meet the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) standard for less than significant impacts.” Anyone who has tried to walk up the Universal hill or navigate the incomplete river bike path knows that the projected mode shift is simply wishful thinking unsubstantiated by reality.
The Friends of Griffith Park analyzed the Evolution project’s impact on the surrounding environment, including the Santa Monica Mountains Range and the Los Angeles River Corridor, and concluded by stating “the scope of the project must be reduced dramatically in order to fully comply with CEQA mitigation requirements.”
Anyone who has ever stood on top of the Mt. Lee knows that the existing ecosystem is incompatible with any further development assault.
This cry for help is an indictment of the process for three reasons:
1) City Planning’s current cost-recovery process simply allows developers to shop for the solutions and decisions that serve them, forcing residents to fight an uphill battle against a ticking clock as LA’s soft City Plan fails protecting the character and personality of our neighborhoods.
2) The Mayor and the City Council’s laissez-faire attitude to development run amok is a complete abdication of their mandate to develop, implement, and enforce a comprehensive, long range General Plan that establishes purposes, policies and programs for the development of the City of Los Angeles.
3) Neighborhood councils, advocacy organizations, and community groups have risen to the occasion, demonstrating with their comprehensive and professional analysis of the Evolution project that LA has become a DIY city, one where our commitment to the future of LA comes from the neighborhood, not from City Hall.
The people of LA have the right to expect a well-planned, well-funded city that operates based on standards that the people of LA can depend on.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)
Vol 9 Issue 17
NBC Universal’s Evolution project is moving forward in a City of LA planning process that is a clear demonstration of all that is wrong with planning and land use policy in the City of Los Angeles. The developer driven process starts with an attack on the already low standards that purportedly protect the people of LA and then continue with exceptions and variances that result in a full assault on the local community.
Developer funded Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), traffic mitigation plans, and community benefit proposals all create a Kumbaya message that is in stark contrast to the simple reality; our infrastructure is collapsing, our streets are congested, emergency services are already challenged, and our environment is choking.
Through it all, the people we send to City Hall stand by and when pressured are only able to come up with one objection, “We need more time!”
NBC Universal’s Evolution project is positioned as an upgrade to existing film production facilities while the simple reality is this, it is the creation of a new residential community on a 391-acre property bordered by the LA River and the Hollywood Hills.
In support of the project comes a 39,000 page EIR, a document so large that it serves to highlight the implausible “hugeness” of the project that is being shoehorned into a patch of land, “all without expanding the current property.”
As Councilmember Tom LaBonge stood before the Planning Commission and asked for an extension of the hearing process until after the March 8 election, organizations from all directions stood by with well reasoned and researched commentary that falls on deaf ears.
The Studio City Neighborhood Council submitted a 98 page review (download pdf) of the Evolution project that comprehensively reviewed the project and concluded “The DEIR does not adequately address the impacts on the community from the proposed Project.” Anyone who has tried to navigate Barham during rush hour knows that the impact on the surrounding communities is already beyond capacity.
The Transit Coalition submitted an analysis (download pdf) of the Evolution project’s transit, bike, and pedestrian accessibility. It challenged the project’s claim of a modal shift away from private vehicles and called for “important modifications to meet the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) standard for less than significant impacts.” Anyone who has tried to walk up the Universal hill or navigate the incomplete river bike path knows that the projected mode shift is simply wishful thinking unsubstantiated by reality.
The Friends of Griffith Park analyzed the Evolution project’s impact on the surrounding environment, including the Santa Monica Mountains Range and the Los Angeles River Corridor, and concluded by stating “the scope of the project must be reduced dramatically in order to fully comply with CEQA mitigation requirements.”
Anyone who has ever stood on top of the Mt. Lee knows that the existing ecosystem is incompatible with any further development assault.
This cry for help is an indictment of the process for three reasons:
1) City Planning’s current cost-recovery process simply allows developers to shop for the solutions and decisions that serve them, forcing residents to fight an uphill battle against a ticking clock as LA’s soft City Plan fails protecting the character and personality of our neighborhoods.
2) The Mayor and the City Council’s laissez-faire attitude to development run amok is a complete abdication of their mandate to develop, implement, and enforce a comprehensive, long range General Plan that establishes purposes, policies and programs for the development of the City of Los Angeles.
3) Neighborhood councils, advocacy organizations, and community groups have risen to the occasion, demonstrating with their comprehensive and professional analysis of the Evolution project that LA has become a DIY city, one where our commitment to the future of LA comes from the neighborhood, not from City Hall.
The people of LA have the right to expect a well-planned, well-funded city that operates based on standards that the people of LA can depend on.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Metro/LADOT prefer the imports over the locals
Los Angeles is the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world, and yet when it comes to transportation planning, apparently the experts are nowhere to be found.
Consider the Metro's upcoming Bicycle Design Workshop taught by John Ciccarelli, a well-regarded professional from Santa Clara County. Are there no professionals in Los Angeles who can address Bicycle Planning? Ryan Snyder lives mid-city, has served on the local neighborhood council, is a nationally recognized planner with experience in active modes, knows the streets and the people and yet he gets passed over. Ron Durgin is a League of American Cyclists certified instructor and his Sustainable Streets organization has planning and education street cred and yet he gets passed over.
How about the Metro's recent Bike to Work Week which was coordinated by the Inland Transportation Services company, a transportation demand consulting organization that claims "extensive experience in the management, implementation and administration of regional rideshare programs." They hail from Riverside County. Based on the Metro's miserable mode-share performance, perhaps it's time to give another consultant a shot at coordinating the Metro's TDM projects. Of the Metro's 9200 employees, 155 ride the Metro to work, 39 bicycle to work, and 36 walk to work. Surely there is a company in Los Angeles County that can beat those numbers.
The Metro isn't alone. The City of LA authorized the LADOT to enter into a contract with Bellevue, WA's Ilium Consulting and to produce a Bike Map with a cost "not to exceed $400,000." Ilum Associates was selected because of its "extensive experience in the production of maps for use by the public." The City Council approval took place in December of 1996 and since then, Ilium and the LADOT have apparently wandered off the trail as the funded Bike Map of Los Angeles has not appeared. Ilium, it should be noted does other marketing work for the LADOT. Apparently nobody knows the street of LA like the folks in Seattle. Are there no cartographers in Los Angeles? Are there no marketing companies in Los Angeles?
The City of LA is currently in the process of developing an updated Bike Plan, supported by Alta Planning with principals hailing from Portland and Marin County. Again, the City Council approved an LADOT initiated contract with the contractor, this time for $450,000, and one that relied on folks from far, far away to join us here on the streets of Los Angeles so they can help us locals find our way. Granted, Alta ended up hiring local folks to execute some of the work, the same thing a local company would have done if it had been awarded the contract, but the City of LA/Alta contract is executed between the Portland/Berkely principals and the City of LA. Isn't there an LA based transportation and planning company capable of handling this kind of work? Further complicating matters is the LA Bike Plan website, complete with an admin address in Portland. Does the City of LA not even own its websites? This is especially unfortunate since Alta Planning has moved on, claiming its work is done, and leaving an "Infeasible" Bike Plan in its wake.
The US Department of Labor reports that the unemployment rate in Washington State is 9.9% and the unemployment rate in Oregon State is 11.7%. Meanwhile, here in California, the unemployment rate is 13%. Why is it so tough for the Metro and the LADOT to hire local? Los Angeles is the center of the universe with people from around the world working hard to get here, to the capital of creativity and innovation. It's time for our transportation authorities to respect the people they purportedly serve by putting them to work.
LA's Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa claims that building a smart transportation system means "Jobs, jobs, jobs!" but the real question is "Who gets LA's transportation jobs?" The people of Los Angeles know the streets of LA, we know the traffic patterns of LA, we know the needs of LA and we know LA. We know the destinations, we know the communities and we know the people. Why do we have to watch from the sidelines while the "imports" bring transportation planning to the natives of Los Angeles?
We deserve better! We deserve accountability! We deserve a commitment from the Metro and from the LADOT that the work done in our communities will be done by locals and for the locals, not to the locals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




