LADOT Turns Mean in Pursuit of the Absurd … and Your Money

Photo: la.streetsblog.org

CityWatch, Aug 5, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 62

RETHINKING LA - The LA Department of Transportation has weathered the recent stormy days of employee misbehavior, administrative misconduct, budgetary misappropriations, and outreach miscommunications, resulting in a leaner, meaner department that is poised to take care of business. That’s Good News.

The LADOT is passing up on opportunities to engage the community in traffic congestion solutions, parking solutions, complete streets solutions, and standards driven enforcement, resulting in a much meaner department that is willing to enter private property to cite vehicles parked in residential driveways. That’s Bad News.

These citations aren’t given to that guy who runs an informal auto repair shop in the driveway of his home, subjecting the neighborhood to toxic waste, to visual blight, and to industrial quality traffic that is forbidden in residential communities. No, not him.

The citations don’t go to the guy who parks his semi-trailer rig in his driveway, turning a local community street into an industrial truck stop, complete with an engine that idles at all hours as he tunes up for the next delivery of Barbie Dolls or Broccoli Spears to the Midwest. Again, not him.

The citations certainly don’t end up on the windshields of the personal vehicles of residents who park in driveways and block the sidewalk, making it impossible for the disabled to enjoy local neighborhood mobility. In fact, the LADOT is working to legitimize motorists who park their cars on public sidewalks, after all, it’s a parking solution!

No, the citations end up on the windshield of a car owned by “Sun,” a woman who bought a four-unit property several years ago and then applied to the City of LA for a class "A" permit that would allow her to install driveway curb cuts, creating access to off-street parking. Permit in hand, she upgraded her property (built in 1921) and proceeded to park two vehicles on paved parking spaces that are behind her well-maintained required front yard set-back.

During the permitting process, BOE asked "Where do you plan to park?" Sun responded "In front of the building but behind the front yard setback." Then BOE wrote on the actual permit "per B&S OK to park behind setback line."

The LADOT initially engaged in a relentless onslaught of citations at this two-space property in 2007 when it averaged four citations a week in the month of January. “Sun” appealed to the LADOT and the wave of citations were reversed by the local LADOT’s Parking Enforcement Captain. The issue appeared to be resolved.

Then the LA Housing Department took over and began issuing notices to the property owner that “conditions may compromise the health and safety of the occupants and/or the integrity of your rental property.”

These notices started in early 2007 and came with an inspection fee that started at $169 plus $32.50 processing fee and then quickly escalated to $705.25 if unpaid within 30 days. The owner appealed to the LAHD and by mid-2008 the notices to comply were reversed, the fees and penalties were waived, and the LAHD agreed that the issue “is not under the jurisdiction of the Housing Department.”

Again, the issue appeared to be resolved.

The Bureau of Engineering then got involved and reversed its original position, deciding that the owner who followed the rules, pulled the necessary permit, and paid the required fees was now out of compliance. In spite of protests from the local neighborhood council, neighbors, and community advocates, the BOE reversed its position and left Sun adrift in a morass of jurisdictional contradictions.

The law is specific, and Sun responded specifically by researching and complying with the City of LA’s rules, regulations, codes, and laws. She was even charged for the appeals process in spite of her victory.

The bureaucratic maze is complicated and the BOE sent the case to Street Services for enforcement, then Sun was sent to Building & Safety where she met friendly folks who most recently explained “We have no jurisdiction over this issue.”

Sun has spent more than four years navigating a journey that has meandered through City Planning, the Bureau of Engineering, the Bureau of Street Services, the Department of Transportation, Building & Safety, the Council Office, two neighborhood councils, all without resolution or relief.

Meanwhile, scofflaws ignore the LADOT with such impunity that the City Controller recently released an audit detailing the millions of dollars in lost revenue due to the LADOT’s failure to address vehicles illegally parked on the streets of Los Angeles.

As for the property owners who are committed to playing by the rules, abiding by the code, adhering to the process, and respecting the system, the reward is punishment, ongoing and relentless punishment that errs in favor of citation and penalty, even charging for the right to appeal.

Sun, who saved her money and invested in the community by purchasing property that is now her home, has been taken on a fatiguing ride that would cause most people to simply give up. But they picked the wrong property owner.

The City of LA has spent over four years engaging in an assault on Sun's use of her private property, in spite of her permits, her receipts, and her ongoing compliance and adherence to LA’s Municipal Code. There was a lull in activity from the Bureau of Engineering, from Building & Safety, from the Housing Department, and from the LADOT's Parking Enforcement, lasting until last month when...they're back!

The LADOT has once again taken to entering private property during the late hours of night to enforce rules that its management acknowledges it has no business enforcing.

This relentless pursuit of the absurd demonstrates three significant flaws in the current delivery of city services:

First, forgoing a standards-driven enforcement process in favor of a complaint-driven system rewards complaints, enforces the law unevenly, and starts the fee/penalty clock based on complaints, regardless of their merit.

Second, the Mayor’s cost-recovery mandate drives departments to gouge the law-abiding members of the community and to ignore the scofflaws, focusing on revenue instead of standards-driven compliance.

Third, when a property owner has to deal with several departments, none of whom can resolve the issue but all of whom can levy fees, fines and charges, it’s evident that the purpose of City Hall is to consume and to staff, but not to perform.

The City of Los Angeles, from the Mayor to the local LADOT Parking Enforcement Officer, exist to serve the public, not to persecute, punish, and penalize those who invest in their community and call LA their home.

It’s time for the LADOT to step off the private property and to get out of the way. It’s time for the city departments to stop looking at the people of LA as revenue opportunities. And it’s time for Mayor Villaraigosa to get the city machine in order and to start delivering city services to the people of LA, after all, that’s his job.

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

CityWatchLA - A Tale of Two Fences

CityWatch, June 21, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 49

RETHINKING LA - Tony and Walter live in Los Angeles, just two and half miles apart, and they both want to live quietly and safely in homes surrounded by security fencing.

Tony has called Windsor Square his home for the last six years and he lives in a lovely house provided by his employer as a condition of his employment.

Walter lives in East Hollywood with his wife and teen-age daughter in a house he bought 14 years ago with money he earns as a painter.

In a city of almost four million people, Tony and Walter live relatively close to each other but they have never met. For all practical purposes, they might as well live in two different countries.

Tony’s neighborhood is very quiet at night. The only sound on Irving Ave. comes from the engine of an idling City of LA Public Safety vehicle which serves as the “guard shack” for the 24 hour city funded security that watches over Tony’s home.

Walter’s street is noisy at night, serving as a popular cut-through between Melrose and Santa Monica. It’s only a short walk to lots of great shops and restaurants but pedestrians are rare in this neighborhood because of fear.

Both gentlemen place a high premium on public safety and Walter agrees with Tony who said "Keeping our City safe is the first responsibility of local government.”

When it comes to results, the men disagree.

Tony recently stood shoulder to shoulder with LAPD Chief Charlie Beck and proudly announced across the board reductions in the city’s crime statistics, “marking the city’s safest point in more than 50 years.”

Walter’s experience contradicts Tony’s claim and to prove it, he simply holds a police report in each hand, representing the two unsolved criminal invasions that took place in his home this past year.

Tony and Walter have both gone public with their experiences.

Tony is often quoted in the press claiming “crime is at historically low levels, gang violence is on the decline, and the City is seeing the fewest homicides in four decades.”

Walter doesn’t get as much media attention but that hasn’t stop him from speaking out about the gang activity, the criminal element, the abandoned homes, the drug and alcohol activity under the freeway overpass, the dumping, the graffiti, and the other signs of a forgotten neighborhood.

In spite of Tony’s “safe city” claims, he apparently agrees with Walter’s personal safety concerns because his office recently submitted paperwork requesting a variance to city bylaws in order to build a security wall around his home.

Tony’s request prompted John Welborne, Windsor Square Association vice president for planning and land use, to say “Should all of Los Angeles, including its historic residential neighborhoods, become a collection of walled compounds?”

Walter has moved more quickly than Tony, building a six foot tall security wall consisting of wrought iron fencing decorated with Asian designs and supported by a series of brick pillars. This defiant act of self-preservation incurred the wrath of the City of LA’s Building and Safety Inspectors who told him his fence exceeded the permitted 42” height. He was fined for building the fence and then fined again for non-compliance and ultimately told to remove his fence.

Meanwhile, Tony is proceeding with a variance request that was prepared by and funded with public funds, after all, his house is provided by his employer which in turns contributes more than $100,000 per year to the foundation that operates and maintains his home.

In spite of the LAPD report indicating that there have been no “calls for service,” Tony knows what it’s like to feel threatened. Just last year, city librarians held a children’s storytelling session on his front lawn to protest his proposed reduction to city library services and staff.

Fortunately for Tony, an LAPD security detail arrives each morning to escort him as he engages in the business of the day, leaving Office of Public Safety officers to guard his home, all at the expense of the City of LA.

Meanwhile, Walter gets up every morning and looks out onto a busy street filled with speeding motorists, littered with shopping carts, host to fresh dumped trash, pocked with the campsites of vagrants and the campers that favor the shade of the freeway overpass. As he locks the gate, he does so knowing that if his family calls for help, there are no neighbors left to hear them. If they call the police, it will take a long time to respond and will simply generate more useless paperwork.

The ongoing debate over walled homes starts with a public safety failure. On the one hand, there is a credible argument for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) that holds the enhanced safety of open and visible space. Walled environments create hiding places and interfere with “eyes on the street” security.

None of this philosophical debate over walls and their impact on public safety, CPTED, or historic preservation matters much to those who have been victimized and who have failed to receive the support of the Mayor’s office, the Council office, the LAPD, the City Attorney.

Walter has been making the rounds of the neighborhood councils, asking for help making their community safer and in getting relief from the crippling fees, fines, and penalties that the City of LA levies as they simply attempt to protect their homes and families.

East Hollywood has more than 100 languages spoken and the greatest obstacle addressing public safety, city ordinances, permits and variances is simply mastering the most difficult language of all, Bureaucratese.

Walter and his neighbors are struggling to master a system that is Byzantine in nature and unforgiving to the mistakes of the uninitiated.

Tony, on the other hand, is the person in charge. The one responsible for public safety, for the staff who administer and enforce the rules and regulations, who respond to issues on the streets. He even has a staff to help him navigate his request for a variance, one paid for by Walter and his neighbors.

Walter and his neighbors have appealed to the Mayor’s office, to City Council President Garcetti’s office, to the LAPD, to the City Attorney’s office and to the local neighborhood councils.

While on the neighborhood council circuit, they often share space with representatives from the city, including the City Attorney’s office, the City Council office, and the LAPD.

The City Attorney’s office showed up recently to extol the virtues of the Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) program that would expedite enforcement of municipal code issues such as over-height fences using a complaint driven process for enforcement that allows the City Attorney to move swiftly with an internal process that fines violators and increases contributions to the City’s General Fund.

Walter and his neighbors looked at each other and realized that this ACE program targeted the residents and small businesses in their community, not the predators who violate their neighborhood, threaten their families, steal their possessions and destroy their peace of mind. From Walter’s perspective, the City Attorney should be focused on pursing the criminals who are mocking the Mayor’s “Safe City” claim.

The LAPD, a billion dollar department, was represented by Captain Bea Girmala who has made the rounds of the local neighborhood councils asking for a share of their $45K annual budget (now $40.5K) in order to buy tactical gear for her officers. The neighbors watch and wonder, a few thousand from Central Hollywood, a few thousand from East Hollywood, when will they have enough tactical gear so they can send a police officer over to our street?

Through it all, Walter and his neighbors encounter the power of the “Department of No!” They call the Mayor’s office but can never get through to anyone who finds their situation worthy of a call or a response. They certainly never bump into a Mayor’s representative on the neighborhood council circuit.

They call City Council President Garcetti’s office and after weeks of communication with a representative, they encounter weeks of silence, only to discover that this representative had transferred into the Mayor’s office.

They call the LAPD and they wait, only to get great advice such as “Build a security fence!” from the officers who arrive at the scene of the crime hours after the call with no greater response than the creation of more paperwork.

Tony and Walter have a lot in common, they both want to build a fence around their homes.

For Tony, his fence represents failure, after all, he has acknowledged that his first responsibility is public safety.

For Walter, his fence is a defiant act that demonstrates his commitment to protecting his home and his family, with or without Tony’s help.

Walter’s front yard has two lawn chairs in the center, decorated with American flags. He hopes to host Tony someday, just the two of them sitting together, watching the street and discussing great neighborhoods and safe communities.

As they say, good fences make good neighbors.

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

CityWatchLA - “The Future, Mr. Gittes … the Future”

CityWatch, June 17, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 48

RETHINKING LA - LA’s City Hall confuses growth for development.

There is a huge difference between growth and development, a distinction that is lost on the caretakers of LA’s future as they gamble on size over substance in a planning Ponzi scheme that is consuming our resources. Growth is simply an increase in size, something third-world countries are capable of doing to the point of absurdity, resulting in unstable governments, illiteracy, disease, high mortality rates, low economic development, high levels of poverty, low utilization of natural resources, the lack of a middle class and heavy dependence on developed nations.

Development, on the other hand, is an improvement in the quality of life for a community, regardless of increases or decreases in populations, and results in improved infrastructure, health care, education, economic opportunity and prosperity, arts and culture, justice and freedom, mobility, and a commitment to a sustainable future.

For years, City Hall has held fast to a planning strategy based on the assumption that the hordes were at the gates and that the population of Los Angeles was going to spike dramatically, straining the infrastructure of an already challenged city.

City planners stoked the fears in local communities, and politicos pushed agendas that paved the way for speculators, builders, and investors by softening restrictive code and supporting construction with public funds.

Mayor Villaraigosa went so far as to claim the construction boom was an indication of economic prosperity and promised to name the “construction crane” the official bird of Los Angeles. The fact that LA’s biggest years for construction coincided with the slowest population growth in over a century was lost on Villaraigosa who continues to tout publicly funded construction sites as evidence of economic growth and employment opportunity.

The State of California doesn’t leave county and city development to chance, requiring all municipal authorities to adopt a General Plan that will serve as a “constitution for future development.”

It’s unfortunate that the term “development” is used so freely, diluting the impact of a word that at one time was used to refer to the implementation of goals and policies that improve the quality of life in a community. Now it symbolizes a commitment to growth at the expense of quality of life, an investment in construction at the expense of infrastructure, and all for a market that doesn’t exist.

LA’s General Plan has seven required elements; Land Use, Transportation (now referred to as Circulation), Housing (recently updated), Conservation, Open-Space, Noise, and Safety. In addition, LA includes elements such as Power Systems, Libraries, Public Schools, Sewerage and Wastewater, Cultural and Historical Monuments, and Water System.

None of this means much because the elements lack integration, have been adopted or updated independently of each other, and are fairly consistently ignored. In fact, it’s safe to say, the City of LA is being run as if the only thing that mattered was funding public safety at the expense of city services and infrastructure maintenance while projecting bold optimism in the restorative power of crony speculation.

Through it all, the members of the public most engaged in the civic process spend the bulk of their time on land use issues, from hillside construction to McMansions to parking to fence heights.

Even the most committed eventually tire and fall by the wayside, leaving scant few to fight the larger battle, a Mayor and City Council leading the City of LA into the future without the benefit of an updated General Plan, without a commitment to investing in infrastructure, and without the full delivery of city services.

The City of LA is looking more and more like a third-world country, broken streets, failing schools, high unemployment, a disappearing middle class, and an unstable government that is unable to deliver on its city service commitment. These are the symptoms of a city led by people who confuse a commitment to growth with a mandate for development.

It’s evident that the Mayor and the City Council are in denial, ignoring State Law and City Charter mandate by engaging in Community Plan updates charades that rely on fictional data that is contradicted by reality.

LA has within it the elements of a global city, capable of taking a leading position in culture, technology, communications, industry, economics, politics and human rights. All that’s missing is the leadership of the people to demand of City Hall a General Plan that commits to development as a refinement, not simply expansion, and a commitment to infrastructure and city services to support the Great City vision.

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

Playing Let’s Pretend: LADOT’s Fake Regime Change

CityWatch, June 10, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 46

RETHINKING LA - Mayor Villaraigosa has responded to the recent spate of controversy at the Department of Transportation by moving his Deputy Mayor of Transportation, Jaime de la Vega, over to the General Manager’s position. Villaraigosa touts de la Vega’s experience as a public policy leader and as a manager with extensive experience working in city government. This begs the question, “Where has de la Vega been for the last six years?”

De la Vega has served the Mayor as the Deputy Mayor of Transportation since 1995, a period of time that has seen the LADOT helmed by a series of short-timers that includes Wayne Tanda, Frances Banerjee, Gloria Jeff, Rita Robinson, and Amir Sedadi.

At each turn of the revolving door, Villaraigosa has had the opportunity to draw on his worldwide contacts and to call up a serious world class change agent capable of taking on the mean streets of Los Angeles and its meaner halls of bureaucracy.

Villaraigosa’s decision to move de la Vega over to the GM’s position calls into question the Mayor’s ability to attract world class transportation experts such as Janette Sadik-Khan and Gil Peñalosa. Either he lacks the contacts or he lacks the commitment to change that they would require. Perhaps it’s a combination of both.

Granted, de la Vega has been a loyal Deputy to the Mayor who has a vested interest in avoiding risk and in staying away from controversy. Most of all Villaraigosa needs to keep the spotlight on America Fast Forward, his last real opportunity to exit office with an accomplishment under his belt.

De la Vega has his work cut out for him, even if his mandate is to quell the audit drama and to keep the LADOT humming quietly with no more trouble.

Even such a low standard for success will prove to be a challenge for three reasons, the politics of transportation in Los Angeles, the culture of contempt within the LADOT, and the antiquated strategies for transportation that contradict LA’s claim as a world class city.

LADOT’s politics would challenge Solomon and transportation improvements make the case. Funding gets cut 15 ways so that every Council District gets its fair share of traffic signals, stop lights, speed humps, Safe Routes to School projects, crosswalks and other traffic improvements. This may seem fair but it prevents fast and innovative work from taking place, and it prevents focused implementation which is more effective.

The fact that King Solomon never split the baby is lost on the LADOT which errs in favor of 15-way diplomacy over inspired funding and implementation. This has resulted in LA accepting third world engineering and traffic control while surrounding cities perform better in funding competition and in implementation.

LADOT’s culture of contempt is palpable, witnessed by a recent email when a local transportation engineer responded to a constituent request by emailing instructions to “Contact the Mayor's office and Council office. This is due to the budget that has been adopted by them. You can let them know that it is an essential city service.”

From top to bottom, the “anywhere but here” response is common, including the following exchange from an Assistant General Manager in response to a California Public Records Act CPRA request: “The process for requesting LADOT documents is shown on our website...go to Contact Us then Documents Request to place your order and submit your payment.”

One would think that a 35-year veteran of public service would be aware of the legal requirement to respond to formal CPRA requests but not at the LADOT.

Truth be told, the LADOT doesn’t play well with the Feds nor the State, resulting in the City of LA having their Safe Routes to School funding “red-flagged” or frozen for failure to perform.

The LADOT doesn’t play well with surrounding cities, actually demanding that the neighbors “dumb down” their traffic control communications to match LA’s antiquated technology.

The LADOT doesn’t even play well within the city family, competing with other departments while surrounding cities outperform at the funding pool.

In fact, the LADOT doesn’t even play well with itself, resulting in a silo environment that saw Operations installing bike lanes on Wilbur Avenue without informing the LADOT’s Bikeways Division, a demonstration of disconnect that comes with a hefty price tag.

LADOT’s culture of caution has resulted in a city that errs in favor of avoidance rather than innovation.

When transportation professionals from around the country gathered in Chicago for a conference last year, they acknowledged that America was a full generation behind in traffic engineering and innovations.

Against that backdrop, a slide was projected that displayed one of LA’s most recent implementations of traffic control and it drew groans and a robust discussion of the ability of local transportation authorities like Los Angeles to misinterpret and misapply simple roadway improvements.

LADOT’s current management argue for the status quo as if LA’s streets and traffic were enviable. They’re not. They’re third world and they’re dangerous.

Jaime de la Vega has the loyalty of the Mayor because of the success of Measure R and the 30/10 plan, now rebranded as America Fast Forward. The Mayor’s exit strategy at this point seems to consist of working to get $40 billion in anticipated tax revenue fronted by the Feds so that 30 years of mass transit projects can be completed in 10 years.

Bold, audacious and a great Swan Song for Mayor Villaraigosa.

If only the LADOT can avoid getting busted for double-dipping on federal funding, if only the LADOT can avoid getting busted for moving Measure R funds from projects to staffing, if only the LADOT can avoid getting kicked out of any more funding pools, if only the LADOT can avoid breaking any more State Laws.

So, it falls on Jaime de la Vega to bring the LADOT in line, an odd assignment since he’s been in charge all along and should be as culpable for the misdeeds of the LADOT over the past 6 years.

Perhaps the Mayor recognizes this and de la Vega’s tour of duty as the GM of the LADOT is his punishment.

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

Tower of Pisa and LA Similar: Both Tilted the Wrong Way for Years

CityWatch, June 7, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 45

RETHINKING LA - The Leaning Tower of Pisa tilted to one side for more than 800 years, slowly settling in the soft subsoil to the point that it was in danger of toppling over. In 1964, the government of Italy requested aid, resulting in a multinational task force of engineers and mathematicians who spent over two decades on stabilization studies that failed to solve the problem. Along came a gardener who looked at the tower and recognized that the problem was similar to the planting of a large tree. “You don’t raise the low side” the gardener explained, “the trick is to lower the high side, allowing the tower to settle into the ground.”

The Leaning Tower of Pisa was saved and for the first time in its history, it stopped moving, demonstrating the power of a fresh perspective and the value of new thinking when working on old problems.

More recently, a company in the business of making things stick produced a glue that simply didn’t work. An exasperated boss applied the adhesive to two pieces of paper and then pulled them apart saying to his staff “What am I going to do with a glue that doesn’t stick?”

A staffer innocently commented “Sometimes I prefer a glue that doesn’t stick forever.” That fresh perspective resulted in the invention of the Post-It.

Life as we know it is filled with examples of accidental discoveries that demonstrate the nature of genius as the ability to look at things differently and to recognize opportunity when faced with defeat.

Alexander Fleming, a Scottish bacteriologist, returned from vacation to discover mold growing on the bacteria cultures he had left exposed in his laboratory. His curiosity exceeded his cleanliness, resulting in the discovery of penicillin.

Alfred Nobel was working with nitroglycerin, a highly unstable explosive, when he dropped some on the ground, but it didn’t explode. His clumsiness resulted in a discovery that led him to develop dynamite.

Life as we know it is filled with inventions and innovations that are the result of happy accidents.

From potato chips and Corn Flakes to pacemakers and anesthetics, we’re surrounded by the results of average folks challenging the status quo and simply asking “What if?”

Even humor has the power to transform as was demonstrated when Dr. Palmer heard a joke so funny he slapped the back of the deaf man next to him, restoring the man’s hearing, and leading to the development of Chiropractic medicine.

This is America, it was discovered by accident. It’s our heritage to celebrate the unexpected and to make the best of the opportunities that often come disguised as problems or failures.

There’s no reason, short of rampant timidity, that we should be an entire generation behind in traffic control innovations or in communications technology.

There’s no reason, short of fear of failure, that we be so far behind in the development of more efficient, effective, economical, and environmentally sensitive energy producing strategies.

There’s no reason, short of institutional mythology, that we should be held hostage as individuals, as communities, and as a city by those who avoid change by arguing “That’s not how it’s done!” and avoid action by claiming “We’ll get sued!”

The City of Los Angeles is in the midst of a crisis and the Mayor has two years to turn around the failures of the Housing, Building & Safety, Planning, Transportation and Water & Power Departments.

Based on results, often harsh but always fair, it’s going to take a fresh perspective, one that rejects the inertia of the past in favor of seizing this moment as an opportunity for new thinking.

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

CityWatchLA - The Timidity of Neighborhood Council Bureaucracy

CityWatch, June 3, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 44

RETHINKING LA - On May 25, 1961 President John F. Kennedy stood before a special joint session of Congress and challenged America to join him in his dramatic and ambitious vision, to send an American safely to the Moon and back, before the end of the decade.

That moment of clear vision and a specific deadline brought out the best in America.

Fifty years later, Neighborhood Council Valley Village celebrated the audacious power of a strong vision coupled with an absolute deadline by rejecting the Sierra Club’s request for a resolution calling on the City of Los Angeles to get off coal by the year 2020.

Treasurer Paul Hatfield, in his City Watch article, explained that a resolution of support “on an issue so complex, with cost ramifications that could strain an already financially challenged municipality, was disrespectful of the deliberative process NCs should follow.“

That moment of caution and the commitment to deliberation is what has brought out the worst in Los Angeles.

Neighborhood Councils were created with a very simple purpose, “to promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

They exist to engage the public in raising the bar, in challenging City Hall to get it done and to define “it” so that the professionals get a clear message of what the community expects.

It is not the responsibility of neighborhood councils to balance the books, to gas the trucks, to audit payroll, to clean the streets, or to buy equipment for city departments.

It’s to set a vision for greatness, including Public Safety, Public Works, Public Health, Public Education, and Public Service, on the Mayor and the City Council and to hold them accountable as they spend $6.9 billion of Public Money getting it done.

Albert Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." I believe that it’s the imagination of the public that should lay the foundation for the future of Los Angeles, even if we don’t possess the road-map or solutions in advance of the commitment to act.

Einstein also said that problems are created with one level of thinking while the solutions to those problems require a different level of thinking.

Of course, he never sat on a neighborhood council board and considered resolutions calling on the Mayor and City Council to support the members of the community as they pursued happiness.

Imagine if Steve Jobs had stood before a Community Council and offered up his vision of “A computer in every home!”

“Has this vision been vetted by committee? Has the applicant ever done this before? What are the economic ramifications of this vision and will it benefit the community? What are the qualifications of the visionary?”

Jobs didn’t ask for permission and he didn’t qualify the vision, in fact he revised it and refined it and raised the stakes when times got tough, bringing out the best in himself and in his team.

He worked with people who embraced the vision, reality be damned, and he held the vision aloft while one partner built the prototype and a third developed the business plan.

The Jobs vision was always in the forefront of the company and the people who joined the company understood and lived the vision. Not the spreadsheet, not the forecasts, not the schematics and not the inventory controls.

Since then, not only has Jobs seen his vision of a computer in every home come true, it’s safe to say that he played a significant role in the revolution that has put a computer in every pocket, on every desk, in every phone, and they’re all being used in ways that Jobs never imagined.

Such is the power of a bold vision.

Of course, Einstein is surely a genius and Jobs is probably up there, but what about the common folk. What can the hoi polloi hope to accomplish, simply by setting a goal and then embarking on a journey without funds and skills and backing and a track record of success?

25 years ago, the Rotary Club demonstrated the power of a simple vision when they took on Polio, historically the world’s greatest cause of disability. In spite of the fact that there is no known cure, they stepped up and declared their vision as “The complete eradication of Polio.”

As of this past year, polio cases have been reduced by 99% and Rotary has been joined by Bill and Melinda Gates in the struggle to focus all of the innovation and creativity they can muster on the last 1%, the hardest 1%.

As the Gates family makes the worldwide eradication of Polio the priority of the Gates Foundation, it’s important to remember that Microsoft was just four years old when the Rotary Club looked at the world, imagined a better place, and committed to a bold vision.

Neighborhood councils are well within their place to stand up and issue declarations calling on City Hall to act professionally and to deliver on its obligations.

After all, without feedback, the Mayor and City Council can hardly be responsive to local needs.

Daniel H. Burnham, architect and urban planner, is quoted as saying “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably will themselves not be realized.”

Los Angeles is fast becoming a DIY city, one where the people of LA are more and more responsible for charting the course.

I challenge the neighborhood councils of Los Angeles to make big plans, to speak loudly and clearly, and to fulfill their destiny by embracing a vision for clean energy, a green economy, new technologies, and healthy communities.

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

CityWatchLA - Please Hold for City Hall!

CityWatch, May 31, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 43

RETHINKING LA - LA’s City Council took another step toward complete irrelevance during the recent budget hearings as it moved from a discussion of city pagers to a robust consideration of the hold music on the city’s 311 phone system.

Faced with a $6.9 billion budget, a half billion dollar shortfall, and impending cuts to city services, LA’s City Council abdicated responsibility and instead continued to engage in a discussion of antiquated communications technology.

In the wilds, this is known as the displacement activity of a cornered animal. At City Hall, it’s simply the Peter Principle coming to life in the Theatre of the Absurd.

To discuss the hold music on the 311 system demonstrates two significant disconnects from reality.

First, the hold music would be somewhat irrelevant if hold times were reasonable. But they’re not. The staff has been cut and the calls for help have escalated.

Reductions in city services, the collapse of a city, and an increase in calls for help as the public realizes that they’re last in line are the symptoms of eviscerated departments and the downward spiral of a city in crisis.

Second, the ongoing discussion of pagers and hold music in City Council Chambers demonstrates a complete disconnect from innovative communication strategies and technologies.

The City of LA is the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world and yet its online presence is painfully provincial and disjointed, lacking any sense of center or internal strategy for navigation.

Planning has a “frame” design that prevents visitors from bookmarking or sharing links with others. During the revision of the Housing Element, staff overcame the limitations of the website by simply building their own temporary site for the Housing Element campaign.

LADOT has also employed the “workaround” solution but in their case, they allowed the consultant to build the website, resulting in a Bike Plan site that now belongs to a vendor that is no longer on the job. Oops!

A visit to the Mayor’s website offers a search feature but “Vision for Connectivity” fails to yield any results. For that matter, simply searching for “Vision” only turns up references to gang reduction, Performance Management, and an old, dusty commitment to turn LA into the cleanest and greenest big city in America.

This is one of those moments when everything becomes clear.

There’s no vision for connectivity at City Hall.

To be sure, each City Councilmember has his/her own strategy for connecting with the public and they range from pagers and rotary phones to the web, typically serving as filters rather that open and transparent opportunities for the public to connect.

For all of the talk of social media, there’s no way to find the folks at City Hall unless you already know them.

@MobilityMaven will send you lots of advice on avoiding the 405 in July, but only if you’re already connected.

@Villaraigosa will send you lots of messages announcing the great work being done in schools, parks, libraries, theatres, cultural centers, and churches, but again, only if you’re already connected.

If you’d like to follow the twitter accounts of the Emergency Management Department or the many Deputy Mayors, it’s an insider game, not for the common folk. In fact, simply calling them by phone or visiting them in person is not for the hoi polloi, it’s for those already connected.

The City of Los Angeles is in need of a Communications Czar, someone who can...well...connect the disparate departments and staffers and electeds under one digital roof that allows the people of LA to understand how the City works, what it consists of, and who does what.

The league of Women Voters of Los Angeles put out a great book entitled “Los Angeles: Structure of a City Government” and it serves as a road map that opens the doors of City Hall to the public.

LA’s website could do the same thing, connecting the public with their city and empowering civic engagement, and it all starts with a simple strategy for the Internet that commits to open and transparent connectivity.

The fact that LA’s City Hall is a cell phone dead zone and requests for wi-fi access simply prompt snickers demonstrates how far LA has to go if it expects to take its place as a Great City.

In the meantime, rumors that “Nearer My God To Thee” will be played as the hold music on LA’s 311 system are unconfirmed.

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

CityWatchLA - Paging City Hall: Curtain is Up at Theater of the Absurd

CityWatch, May 27, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 42

BOX SOAP - As the City of LA’s $6.9 billion budget drama played out in City Hall, it was the robust discussion of the current city staff reliance on pagers that demonstrated City Hall’s commitment to the status quo and its complete inability to move forward.

Pagers are a thing of the past, unless you arrive at TGI Friday’s during rush hour when there’s a long wait for tables. Then, and only then, is the little blinky pager/coaster an appropriate tool for communication.

The City of LA is the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful nation in the world and yet...during the third year of a budget meltdown that continues to memorialize the evisceration of LA’s future, the City Council is somehow able to find time to discuss the merits of a paging system for city staff.

I expect better. But, more and more, the people of LA expect less and less, and that allows City Hall to lower the standard even more.

Faced with a budget crisis, embracing technology as a tool for increasing efficiencies would be a wise commitment, one that would result in a commitment to delivering city services while cutting costs.

But, a discussion of pagers by city staff during the line-by-line charade was by no stretch of the imagination an exploration of technology. It was Theatre of the Absurd!

The alphanumeric pager enjoyed a long stretch of popularity but in recent years, it was used primarily by drug dealers and doctors, then just by doctors. Even the medical profession is rebelling against the use of pagers, dispelling the mythology of electronic interference while statistically demonstrating the fallibility of the antiquated paging technology.

It’s been ten years since Forbes pronounced the pager dead, suggesting then that there might be better uses for the radio networks such as for tracking packages and vehicles by both customers and supervisors.

Imagine that! While LA department heads are fighting for the continued use of an obsolete tool, they could be tracking the city-owned vehicles that end up parked outside strip clubs or in neighboring cities filled with city staff on culinary road trips.

LA’s communications disconnect is readily apparent when there is a major crime and the number given out goes to a desktop phone that accepts messages. At a time when encouraging witnesses to come forward is most important, nothing is more discouraging than an answering machine.

LA’s inability to grab a hold of Internet Technology is demonstrated by the proliferation of city staff generated blogs and websites that are project or topic specific, an admirable workaround that demonstrates the larger failure of City Hall to develop a systemic protocol for websites, web addresses, staff training, connectivity, and interface.

While it’s admirable that the Mayor has released some YouTube videos, grabbing some street cred along the way, the LAPD can’t access YouTube which makes it hard to encourage them to take a look at the videos that may have information they need.

This fear of social media demonstrates the huge disconnect between City Hall and the real world.

During the Station Fire, the public relied on the grass roots communications network for information, learning quickly that the authorities were ill-equipped for handling information as the Brown Act hit the fan.

LA’s Emergency Management Department released pdf documents on their website with emergency bulletins containing information for the public on a regular basis, Monday through Friday, as if emergencies adhere to the traditional workweek and then take weekends off.

There are some bright shining lights in the midst of LA’s bleak communication landscape. The LA Fire Department’s Brian Humphrey was a pioneer in bringing his role as Public Information Officer to life by connecting with the public using the tools that were popular. The @LAFDtalk twitter handle is complemented by a blog, all of which give Brian, and his partners Matt Spence and Erik Scott, an audience that can connect with the Fire Department without having to look for a fax machine.

Ultimately, in the midst of a $6.9 billion dollar budget meltdown, I don’t care if city staff are using tin cans and rope, there are bigger topics to debate during the budget hearings and I fully expect those in charge to put down the sandwich and address the major budget issues.

That didn’t happen.

Instead, they discussed Yogi the Bear but failed to resolve the issue, they discussed Crossing Guard bonuses of $2 million but failed to resolve the issue, they discussed the inappropriate use of Measure R funds for staff instead of infrastructure but failed to resolve the issue, and they discussed the definition of neighborhood council stakeholders, again while failing to resolve the issue.

In magic, it’s called misdirection, diverting the audience’s attention from the sleight of hand. In politics, it’s called a lack of leadership, keeping the public debate away from the tough topics that require decisive action and also come with a cost to political capital.

As the City of LA’s 2011-2012 Budget sits on the Mayor’s desk, awaiting his final approval, one can only imagine the hard work of the budget scribes in the City Hall towers, working late into the night with candles burned to the nub, quill pens in hand, ink-stained blotters at the ready, heating wax for that moment when Sir Anthony applies his mayoral ring to the seal.

Let this be the last year that we wallow in the comfort of old tired technologies. Let this be the last year that we do things simply because that’s the way we’ve always done them.

Let this be the last year that we allow the City Council and the Mayor to distract the people of Los Angeles from the potential of the future.

It’s time for the City of Los Angeles to take its place as the City that leads the world in culture, in technology, in communications, and in innovation. It’s our destiny.

Now, seriously, please turn off your pagers and join us in moving forward.

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

CityWatchLA - Five Signs LA is a DIY City

CityWatch, May 17, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 39

BOX SOAP - The City of LA’s self-crippling budget crisis gives new meaning to the phrase “If you want something done correctly, do it yourself.”

Consider these five examples of Do-It-Yourself management initiatives sponsored by the people of Los Angeles in response to the failings of City Hall.

1) The Inspector General for Revenue Collection, as proposed by the Commission on Revenue Efficiency (CORE), is a position that will have the authority and staff to collect the revenue owed to the City of LA.

The Byzantine structure of LA’s government has resulted in billing collection redundancies that leave individual departments responsible for collecting revenue but with little incentive or oversight. Focused on headcount and generating billing, department heads have allowed the actual collections to fall between the cracks, resulting in $541.1 million in bad debt.

When CORE released its 107-page Blueprint for Reforms of City Collections and the 67 specific recommendations including the creation of the Inspector General position, Chairman Ron Galperin pointed out "The City has no real centralized billing and collection process and systems are woefully outdated."

2) The DWP Ratepayers Advocate, as championed by neighborhood council leaders such as Jack Humphreville, President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and CityWatch columnist, and as approved by 80% of the voting public who voted for Measure I which authorizes the Office of Public Accountability and the Ratepayer Advocate, to be effective July 1, 2011.

The movement to forge a relationship with LA’s Department of Water and Power, a Proprietary Department, was motivated by the failure of the Mayor and the City Council to control the nation's largest municipal utility, owned by the people of LA but operating as if the relationship were reversed.

Responsible for delivering reliable, safe water and electricity supplies to the 4 million residents and businesses in Los Angeles, the DWP has also delivered controversy and drama that has resulted in a revolving door of General Managers and recent ballot measures that attest to the failure of City Hall to control this city asset, placing the responsibility on the people of LA.

3) The City Prosecutor is a position that would require bifurcating the City Attorney’s office, creating a position that would actually represent the people of Los Angeles. The current scenario has the City Attorney representing the City of LA as the client, while the people of LA are forced to provide their own legal representation.

The absurdity of the current one-sided legal arena was most recently demonstrated when Barry Sanders, Chair of the Rec and Parks Commission and retired Latham & Watkins Partner, appeared before the City Council in defense of his park advertising scheme.

Sanders complained that the City Attorney’s office should stop raising legal objections based on LA’s sign ordinance to the Parks Foundation sale of advertising in city parks and should instead be looking for ways to legalize it as “Government Speech” on behalf of the Commission.

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

4) Community leaders have long held that as long as the citizen oversight of the city’s departments comes from people appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council, the people of LA are not represented and there is no real accountability.

LA’s Commissions range in effectiveness and power, some meeting for mere moments on an irregular basis to approve consent agendas while others meet regularly and exert significant influence over city policy and operations.

Joe Barrett of Sunland Tujunga made it a campaign issue in the most recent elections that the people of LA should have a seat on each Commission that is filled by the neighborhood councils.

This would require a Charter amendment and a campaign to get a neighborhood council sponsored initiative on the 2013 ballot must start immediately.

5) Task Forces consisting of both city staffers and community leaders have stepped up to fill the void left behind as the city has bogged down in the budget crisis, demonstrating an effectiveness and agility that has raised the bar.

Under Chief Beck’s leadership, cyclists and the LAPD formed the Cyclists/LAPD Task Force and now work together on policy and programming, resulting in an educational program that is ahead of the state standard.

DONE’s GM, BongHwan Kim, points to the work of the Elections Task Force and the By-Laws Task Force as examples of community members partnering with city staff to move quickly and to maximize results.

Kim has long advocated for neighborhood councils to go beyond simple “median strip beautification” projects and to use each action as an opportunity to fulfill the City Charter mandate “To promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

The East Hollywood Neighborhood Council took a simple constituent complaint about blight and formed the Route 66 Task Force, committed to engaging the people of the community and the city departments in a campaign to reconnect Santa Monica Boulevard with its Route 66 legacy.

PlanCheckNC has picked up the slack with City Planning, the Budget Advocates have made great recommendations on the Budget, and the LA Bike Working Group took the Bike Plan where the LADOT and its consultants were afraid to ride. Through it all, LA’s Task Forces are demonstrating that the future of LA lies in partnerships.

At this past Saturday’s GM Roundtable, Amir Sedadi of LADOT and Ron Olive of Bureau of Street Services both indicated that the most effective way for neighborhood councils to work with the departments on the delivery of city services is to engage the community, establish priorities, and communicate clearly on behalf of the neighborhood.

The people of Los Angeles have an opportunity, to get lost in the budget drama and the debates over “budget dust” or to seize this opportunity of crisis and to use the energy to fight for systemic change.

Now is the time for the people of LA to work together to bring the offices of the Inspector General, the Ratepayers Advocate, and the City Prosecutor to life, complemented by an initiative to create a “People’s Seat” on each City Commission and supported by Task Forces that address the ongoing power vacuum in Los Angeles.

(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.)

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 - For LADOT GM the Honeymoon is Way Past Over

CityWatch, May6, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 36

Amir Sedadi, Interim General Manager of LA’s Department of Transportation, demonstrated that the honeymoon is over as he took his turn before the City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee during the ongoing Budget Hearings.

The gloves came off at “Hello!” as Sedadi greeted the Committee by pointing out the late hour, revealing a perceived slight based on his 7pm position on the agenda.

He then took the Committee on a journey of his departmental headcount losses over the last couple of years but neglected to offer up any accountability for his performance and for the performance of his department. This was a huge shortcoming.

City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee reviewed Sedadi’s performance during the
Budget Hearings, finding fault with his creative staffing and budget solutions and taking him to task for moving Measure R funds from the intended infrastructure projects and using them for staffing. Chairman Parks clarified by saying “Measure R funds projects, not people.”

Councilman Smith offered his analysis, digging a little deeper and pointing out that the LADOT paid part-time crossing guards $2.2 million in bonuses on top of $5 million in salaries, causing LADOT staff to scramble for answers, finally resulting in Sedadi explaining “We did it because some of the staff worked weekends and evenings.” Smith called it “Shocking.”

Sedadi’s high point during his reign was the approval of LA’s Bike Plan and Councilman Rosendahl gave him bragging room with questions about the LADOT Bikeways Department and the implementation of the Bike Plan.

Sedadi pointed out that the Bikeways Department was fully staffed with seven engineers, two project coordinators, four paid interns and four unpaid interns. He spoke glowingly of the support of the community and the partnership between the Department and the public.

If only it were true. If only there were any results to show for the staffing commitment.

From LA Streetsblog to members of the Bike Plan Implementation Team, the criticism from the public and from the media is that the LADOT staff have failed to implement any of the Bike Plan projects and that they continue to show up for meetings unprepared and unwilling to move forward.

Prior to the Budget hearings, City Controller Wendy Greuel had taken Sedadi and the LADOT to task for failing to collect an estimated $15 million in unpaid parking tickets from "scofflaws," or frequent law violators.

Demonstrating leadership skills that cry for evaluation, Sedadi had explained that the LADOT’s centralized unit for scofflaw enforcement has been disbanded because of budget cuts.

This short sighted budget solution resulted in long term revenue losses that could have gone a long way to delivering city services to the people of Los Angeles.

NBC4 has also been critical of Sedadi’s leadership, offering up news that two LADOT employees had participated in shooting a porn while on duty, in uniform, and in a city vehicle.

Most damning is the fact that LADOT management knew of the incident for more than two months in advance of the NBC4 broadcast but failed to initiate action until confronted by the press.

Adding to the well-rounded criticism of Sedadi’s performance came a whistleblower’s call to Greuel’s office that exposed the LADOT’s $2.5 million overpayment on an old contract while leased gear sat in storage accruing charges. Sedadi blamed old management from 2006, failing to mention that he was Assistant GM for four years and either missed the overpayment or failed to act on it.

Amir Sedadi first began working for the City of LA in 1990 and has served in several positions, including as Assistant Deputy Director of Transportation in the Mayor’s office and as the LADOT’s Liaison to the Mayor and City Council. He knows his way around City Hall.

Sedadi took over the reins of the LADOT six months ago, a role he prepared for by serving as the heir apparent to Rita Robinson, the City Hall veteran who capped her 35-year career with a tour of duty at the helm of the Department of Transportation.

When Robinson announced her retirement, transportation advocates from around the city expressed hope that the Mayor would engage in a worldwide search for a leader in transportation innovations and active transportation, one capable of serving as a "change agent."

Common wisdom from the streets held that a promotion from within would result in “more of the same” while hiring from outside would represent a Mayoral commitment to Complete Streets and multi-modal transportation.

Informal surveys advanced candidates such as Long Beach’s Sumi Gant, San Francisco’s Tim Papandreou, Bogota’s Gil Peñalosa, New York’s Janette Sadik-Kahn, and Copenhagen’s Jan Gehl, resulting in a petition generated by Streetsblog that called for a “Game Changer” at the helm of the LADOT.

While Sedadi’s performance as the leader of LA’s Department of Transportation falls far short of minimal acceptable standards, the real call for accountability belongs to the mayor and his staff, past and present.

As the Mayor coasts into the sunset, as former First Deputy Mayor Austin Beutner embarks on his mayoral campaign, and as Deputy Mayor Jaime de la Vega steers $40 billion in Measure R funding down the pike, Sedadi’s failure to perform calls into question any notion of accountability at City Hall.

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

CityWatchLA - What IS Art?

CityWatch, May 3, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 35

The debate over the definition of Art is as timeless as Art itself. This spells opportunity for LA’s City Hall, a creative institution filled with wild imaginations and machinations that never fail to seize opportunities to short-cut the process and side-step the public.

Consider the CRA, the good folks responsible for bringing Hollywood & Vine to life with the LED pillars on the 1600 Vine Project that are now positioned as an Art installation, a convenient work-around on the city’s sign ordinance and a mechanism for establishing signage with revenue potential on a CRA development. Crafty!

Consider the Wilshire Grand Hotel, a large redevelopment project that promises architectural lighting features and an electronic skin that will display colored, changing images. In any other town this would be referred to as a billboard but Councilman Ed Reyes settled the issue by declaring, “It is art. And I believe it adds more culture.” Bold!

The Wilshire Grand Hotel debate over the nature of advertising and the difference between a billboard and a building disguised as a billboard involved architects, artists, planners, developers, and LA’s City Council.

Reyes further clouded the issue by allowing that an LED wrapped building is permissible because "It will be artistic in nature.”

“Artistic in Nature” has long been the domain of Barry Sanders, President of the Recreation and Parks Commission and proponent of a crafty proposal to position a common advertising package in public parks as an Art installation, one that would simply use imagery of Yogi the Bear on buildings, trash and words such as “play” and “picnic” that encourage responsible park use. Ingenious!

Sanders demonstrates a knack for creativity as he positions signs as murals, advertising fees as donations, and illegal signage as protected “government speak” that warrants the support of the City Attorney, not warnings of legal limitations.

From the CRA to the City Council to the Recreation and Parks Commission, the debate over the definition of Art demonstrates a desperate pursuit of revenue that has the City of LA challenging the same laws, codes, and rules that it is responsible for enforcing.

Through it all, the definition of Art remains unresolved. It has been said that true Art stirs an emotional response from the audience and the fact that the City of LA is able to continue this charade without stirring outrage from the public demonstrates that these schemes fail to qualify as Art.

At the same time, watching Councilmembers and Commissioners perform their lines with a straight face as they claim a commitment to avoiding visual blight is such a compelling delivery of fiction that perhaps it is their performance that is Art.

If only it were believable.

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

CityWatchLA - Yogi ‘Sparks’ Debate

CityWatch, Apr 29, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 34

CITY BUDGET HEARINGS
Stephen Box

In the midst of LA’s City Council Budget Hearings and a department-by-department examination of the Mayor’s proposed $6.9 billion budget, it was Yogi Bear who stirred the most rigorous debate, courtesy of Recreation and Parks Commission President Barry Sanders who continues to bemoan the failure of his park advertising scheme. Against a backdrop of Union deliberations over their contract with the City of LA and in the midst of presentations by the Police and Fire Departments, the City Controller and the City Attorney, and the Finance and Pensions departments, the introduction of Yogi Bear into the discourse borders on the misdirection typically reserved for sleight of hand artists.

(See a more indepth analysis of Rec and Parks session at the City Budget meeting by Kristin Sabo at Griffith Park Wayist)

The Mayor’s proposed budget of $6.9 billion includes $4.3 billion in General Fund costs and includes strategies to overcome an anticipated General Fund deficit of $463 million.

The most interesting whisper came during Wednesday’s opening session when LA’s Chief Administrative Officer reported that the anticipated revenue for 2011-2012 would actually increase by 0.1%, begging the question “Where does all that money go?”

Then began the litany of General Fund expenses, including the cost of two labor forces, the current city staff and the 30 thousand LA City retirees. With current pension contributions at $800 million and projected to climb to $1.6 billion, the unavoidable long term budget balancing solution must address labor, healthcare and pension costs.

Meanwhile, the Coalition of Unions, representing 19,000 employees, voted on the Mayor’s proposal to reduce salaries and increase healthcare contributions in return for an end to furloughs and an agreement to forgo layoffs.

Of the 18 participating unions, 4 voted against the proposal, including the union that represents LA’s Deputy City Attorneys which rejected it 143-288 and then issued a press release condemning the proposal.

The irony here is the fact that it was the City Attorney’s office that defended the City of LA in its fight to impose the furloughs, winning the legal battle on behalf of the City. Much was made of this dichotomy of loyalties as Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter defended his department during the opening day of the Budget Hearings.

Need to Know: To follow the daily Budget Hearings, the schedule and agenda is available at the Budget & Finance website. The schedule is fairly fluid, sometimes moving quickly, sometimes slowing down, so check back often if you want to participate in the review of a specific department.

To listen in on Council Phone, dial (213) 621-CITY (2489), (310) 547-CITY (2489), (310) 471-CITY (2489) or (818) 904-9450

For Live and On-Demand Streaming Video of the Budget Hearings, video and audio archives are available as well as the hearings when they are in session.

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

CityWatchLA - Improving Public Safety or Picking the Public’s Pocket?

CityWatch, Apr 26, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 33

LA’S ACE PROGRAM
Stephen Box

Promises of efficiency and revenue herald the arrival of LA’s Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) Program, a streamlined process that is positioned as a public health and safety tool for the departments who provide code enforcement services to the people of Los Angeles.

The ACE program is an alternative enforcement method that allows the Police, Fire, Building & Safety, Housing, Transportation, Public Works, and Animal Services to issue administrative citations within their normal scope of work rather than the traditional citations that tend to get lost in the priorities of the City Attorney’s office and the logjam of our court system.

Current code violations tend to take up to a year to process, wearying both those who initiate the complaints and those who fight to defend themselves against the complaints. The only winners are those who abuse the system and benefit from the random effectiveness.

Debate over the ACE program tends to position the same features as both benefits and liabilities.

For example, the fact that the program is a source of revenue is a benefit to a city in the midst of a budget crisis but it hardly bodes well for the defendants that their guilt and penalty is linked to the solvency of the city. Against the backdrop of the LAPD’s recent “ticket quota” court case, the notion that the program’s success could prompt overzealous hearing officers to generate revenue has been positioned as a liability by civil rights advocates.

The fact that the ACE program has a lower burden of proof is a benefit in terms of efficiency, allowing Pro-Tem judges (attorneys who volunteer for the courts) to process the low-priority cases that tend to get lost in the current scenario. Of course, the ease with which defendants may find themselves on the penalty end of a judgment issued by hearing officers eager to please their potential future employers is a liability.

The fact that the program is complaint-driven is a benefit to those in the community willing and able to participate by initiating complaints for barking dogs, gasoline leaf-blowers, over-height fences, front lawn parking and a host of other violations. At the same time, it allows for an uneven application of citywide municipal code, creating a liability that can fracture a local community by pitting neighbor against neighbor instead of simply applying standards that are enforce uniformly and evenly.

While the concept of a City Attorney’s office that can focus on serious crimes while the ACE program dispenses with the lower priority violations is attractive and potentially revenue generating, the devil is in the details.

Missing from the proposal is an interdepartmental process establishing responsibility for tracking and collecting administrative fines for all non-contested citations.

If the revenue goes to the General Fund, departmental motivation is lost. If the revenue goes to the respective Departments, it creates a motivation to generate citations.

Through it all, it relies on efficiencies within the City Attorney’s office but does nothing to address the disconnect between the many Departments with the authority to cite for municipal code violations.

The Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates have called for the implementation of the City Attorney’s Administrative Code Enforcement (ACE), referring to it as a “Revenue Generator.”

The ongoing debate will need to determine if the ACE program is an effort to improve public safety and health more efficiently or to generate revenue more efficiently.

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

CityWatchLA - Streets are for People

CityWatch, Apr 22, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 32

What happens in Los Angeles doesn't stay in Los Angeles … it resonates! In fact, common wisdom holds that "As goes LA, so goes the nation." This was especially evident at this week's Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) conference in San Diego where almost 1000 traffic, public health, land use, law enforcement and advocacy professionals came together to leverage federal funding and implement safety initiatives that reduce fatalities on our streets.

Against the backdrop of LA's budget crisis and the proposed reduction of city services in an effort to close the $463 million deficit, the OTS funding, programming and partnership opportunities are all the more important.

Dr. Jeffrey Michael of the US Department of Transportation opened the conference with a big picture challenge saying "When it comes to traffic safety, we look to you for leadership in addressing distracted and impaired motorists."

Christopher Murphy, OTS Director, made it personal and challenged the conference participants to start by changing their own behavior. "It's up to the professionals to set the standard so stop multi-tasking and concentrate when you're driving."

Conference participants were presented with an array of opportunities to work together on engineering, education, encouragement, evaluation, and enforcement strategies for making our streets safer for all users.

LA was well represented at the conference and Ron Durgin, President of Sustainable Streets, said "Implementation of California's Complete Street Act is so much more likely when engineers and law enforcement and advocates all work together to make our streets safer for all modes, from peds to cyclists, from transit passengers to motorists."

For the people of Los Angeles, safe streets are much more likely if they are pursued by the local community in partnership with local advocates and City Hall.

The immediate opportunities on the horizon are the current Safe Routes to School funding, federal and state money that can be spent to improve local sidewalks and streets to encourage children on their school commutes.

For more information, visit OTS.ca.gov or SustainableStreetsLA.org or email info@SustainableStreetsLA.org

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