TURNING THE POWER ON - Several blind men are asked by their King to examine an elephant and then to describe its appearance.
The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a giant fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.
The King, in his infinite wisdom, informed the blind men that they were all correct in their evaluations, although their observations were limited to their individual experiences.
Those same blind men, if asked to visit different neighborhood councils, would probably come back with a wide variety of experiences, all of them true but typically limited in accuracy.
The first man might experience a social group, one that is focused on creating community. The second man might discover a local enforcement authority, intent on upholding codes and laws in the neighborhood. The third man might experience a de facto planning commission, focused on land use issues and parking requirements. The fourth man might find himself in the midst of a beautification society, focused on landscaping and gardens. The fifth man might find himself in an empty room, victim of bad outreach and erratic scheduling.
The last blind man might find himself in the midst of a crowd, surrounded by empowered neighbors who were united in their commitment to monitor the deliver of city services, to meet with city leadership, to advise the Mayor and City Council, and to involve the community in the civic engagement process.
The King, in his infinite wisdom, might acknowledge the truthfulness of each man’s experience, but if he was a fan of Charter Reform, he would take note of the sixth man’s experience and ask the crowded neighborhood council how it was that they were able to keep focused on civic engagement and neighborhood empowerment.
It has been ten years since the first neighborhood councils were certified and the last decade has been a series of uphill battles for relevance, many of which take place as if the City Charter wasn’t clear on their purpose.
The purpose of neighborhood councils, as defined in the City Charter, is “To promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”
The Charter goes on to explain that, “Neighborhood councils shall include representatives of the many diverse interests in communities and shall have an advisory role on issues of concern to the neighborhood.”
Lest there be any confusion over priorities, the Charter identifies and prioritizes two areas of responsibility, the city’s budget and the delivery of city services.
As the City of LA prepares to engage in another round of budget triage, calling into question each department’s function and performance, it is imperative that neighborhood councils get in touch with their City Charter mandate and evaluate themselves accordingly.
For the neighborhood councils who wish to enhance their ability to engage their community and make their government more responsive to local needs, help is on the way.
On Thursday the 23rd of February, the Center for Non-Profit Management will be partnering with Empower LA in a dynamic training workshop that will focus on strategies and techniques for effective neighborhood council advocacy.
Participants will leave with a plan for turning their Neighborhood Council board into a powerful advocate when dealing with City of LA agencies, departments, committees, commissions and elected officials.
Community leaders will:
• Learn ways to achieving goals as a group
• Discuss a plan of action around your top priorities
• Hear success stories from Neighborhood Councils who are making an impact
Date:
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Time:
5:30pm-8:30pm
Location:
Center for Nonprofit Management - California Endowment Building
1000 N Alameda Street,
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Agenda:
5:30-6:00pm - Registration, Refreshments
(Dinner available for purchase - $10)
6:00-8:30pm - Program and Panel
Emely Aleman, 12, and Angela Rodriguez, 10, were struck by a motorist as they attempted to cross Laurel Canyon Boulevard, a tragedy that resulted in the death of Emely and critical injuries to Angela.
The community immediately responded with outrage, calling the intersection of Laurel Canyon and Archwood a dangerous location with a long legacy of traffic collisions that include three other incidents this year where pedestrians attempting to cross the street were hit by motorists.
Community members immediately circulated a petition and demanded that the City of Los Angeles install a traffic signal. Councilman Paul Krekorian promptly responded and indicated that he will be working with LAUSD Boardmember Tamar Galatzan to expedite the installation process.
The rush to solve the problem of dangerous traffic on Laurel Canyon has resulted in a solution that fails to scratch the surface and, in fact, fails to correctly identify the underlying problems.
The local community is to be commended for taking responsibility for public safety but it is incumbent on the City of Los Angeles to support the community with the full spectrum of professional traffic safety and transportation engineering solutions, complemented by a vigorous funding campaign.
The speed limit on Laurel Canyon is completely unenforceable by the LAPD who use radar and laser for speed limit enforcement but are restricted from streets that have expired speed limit surveys. Laurel Canyon, from Ventura Boulevard to Hubbard Street, is 10 miles of open speedway, and motorists have been uncitable since October 21, 2009.
Traffic calming techniques such as a road diets, bulbouts, raised median strips, safety refuge islands, speed tables, and other traffic calming techniques would both increase capacity and throughput while managing speed and enhancing safety for all modes.
Yet, these strategies were never introduced into the conversation nor was the local community engaged in the process of embracing solutions that would impact the entire boulevard.
The Highway Safety Improvement Project (HSIP) funding program has $72 million available to communities such as NoHo, specifically to fund projects that will improve safety on the streets of local neighborhoods. The City of LA has proposed a list of 33 projects for the current funding cycle, the bulk of which are signal phasing projects and traffic signal installations.
The HSIP funding program is competitive and Los Angeles is up against other communities within the LA and Ventura County areas. LA's signal phasing and traffic lights will be competing against innovations such as in-pavement crosswalk illumination, road diets, traffic calming, speed feedback signs, traffic circles, mini-roundabouts, and pedestrian prioritized signal phasing. LA will probably fall back on its "fair share" claim to funding when the competition gets tough.
HSIP proposals must be made by municipal authorities such as the City of Los Angeles and the competition is tough. Many of the surrounding communities have proposed projects that come with robust community support. Neighborhood Councils, Homeowners Associations and Community Organizations could be proposing their own safety projects and partnering with the Bureau of Streets Services or their Council Office.
HSIP proposals don't need to be complicated or full of engineering complexities, but can be as simple as an overview of the current environment (sketchs or photographs), collision data which is available from the LAPD, a brief description of the concept or proposal and a pricetag of up to $900,000. The deadline for HSIP proposals is December 9, 2010.
The "rush to judgment" and the knee-jerk proposal to install a traffic signal on Laurel Canyon Boulevard is unfortunate for many reasons including the simple fact that signals can inadvertently cause greater speed differentials, with motorists speeding up to catch greens and then stopping rapidly when they miss them. This diminishes safety.
Moderate and consistent speeds are optimum for capacity, throughput, and safety for all road users. Traffic signals create a false sense of control and demonstrate an adherence to an antiquated paradigm of traffic control that has demonstratedly failed the people of Los Angeles.
Now is the time for LA to connect with robust transportation funding sources, with innovative traffic safety solutions, and with each other by working together to develop streets that are safe for everybody, regardless of the mode of travel.
For more information on the HSIP program and how your community can participate in developing and funding projects that will make the streets of Los Angeles safer, contact Dale Benson.
"I used to believe in conspiracies, until I discovered incompetence." -Former L.A. councilwoman Ruth Galanter
A simple Bureau of Street Services (BOSS) resurfacing project on the Valley's Wilbur Avenue and a Department of Transportation (LADOT) "road diet" have kicked the proverbial hornet's nest, resulting in a clash of cultures that continues to escalate, drawing both CD12's Councilman Smith and LADOT's departing GM Rita Robinson into the fracas. Nine months ago, the BOSS notified local agencies and utilities that Wilbur Avenue, between Devonshire and Chatsworth, was scheduled for a facelift. After allowing six months to pass, ensuring that there are no construction conflicts, the BOSS went to work performing a street improvement that typically brings cheers from the community.
The Department of Transportation, which has three sections engaged in the business of designing street plans, (only two of them subscribe to the BOSS notifications!) jumped on the street resurfacing opportunity and implemented a "road diet." Wilbur went from two lanes in both directions to one lane in each direction, a left turn lane, and bike lanes on both sides.
All this took place quietly. No outreach, no coordination between the LADOT and the neighborhood councils or the CD12 council office or the cycling community or the local PTA or the local NASCAR chapter. No coordination took place between the LADOT's Operations, Geometrics, and Bikeways divisions. Nobody notified the City of LA's Bicycle Advisory Committee. Nada!
The LADOT argues that they simply took advantage of an opportunity to engage in a "road diet" and to add bike lanes and that they should be congratulated, not criticized. "After all," says LADOT's Assistant GM John Fisher, "the 1996 Bike Plan calls for bike lanes on Wilbur Avenue and we had a very small amount of time to design and implement a new striping plan. We had no time for outreach."
Conspiracy theorists tend look at situations such as this and wonder if the LADOT simply dropped bike lanes onto Wilbur as part of an engineered conflict strategy, killing any hope of a bikeway network, resulting in an "I told you they don't fit!" declaration and allowing a return to "business as usual."
Realists, like Galanter, will look at this situation and simply chalk it up to incompetence.
1) LADOT Incompetence: Wilbur Avenue has been designated for Bike Lanes since '96 and yet the LADOT Bikeways division never developed a striping plan. 14 years is a long time and yet the LADOT claims they had no time for outreach because the resurfacing work was a surprise to them.
DOT Operations subscribes to the BOSS resurfacing notification yet DOT Bikeways doesn't. The simplest and cheapest way to introduce bikeways facilities to the streets of LA is to work cooperatively with other departments.
2) Outreach Incompetence: The LADOT has a Bikeways Project Coordinator who somehow has the time to travel, from Sacramento and Chattanooga, giving presentations on facilities that don't exist in the City of Los Angeles.
It would seem that the highest priority would be on coordinating the divisions within the LADOT, the LADOT with other city departments, and the City of LA with the people who actually walk, ride bikes, take mass transit and drive the streets.
Most importantly, it would seem that coordinating transportation issues with the people of Los Angeles would be a priority but, based on results, such was not the case.
For all of the billion dollar transportation solutions on the horizon, the simplest opportunity for the people of LA to improve access and mobility is to focus on "human infrastructure," information and education that results in small behavioral shifts, all adding up to safer streets, greater communication and cooperation, and enhanced effectiveness for all modes.
The Wilbur Avenue incident is the epitome of arrogance, imposing a solution on the community without input and then framing the situation as a win-lose proposal.
It created a situation that consumed incredible amounts of energy and time, not from the folks who are on the clock, but from the community, all because the LADOT is evidently incapable or unwilling to simply engage the community in the solution.
"Road diets" are not new and the notion that moderate speeds increase capacity and through-put is counter-intuitive but true.
The fact that property values go up as speeds go down and the fact that local residents can cross the street safely and enjoy active transportation when cut-through traffic is eliminated are all missing from the conversation because the conversation never took place.
The LADOT must embrace a "Common Ground" approach to traffic engineering or the Wilbur Incident repeat itself in other neighborhoods.
3) Council Office Incompetence: Councilman Smith has come forward to argue that the bike lanes don't make sense. In fact, he went so far as to introduce a motion that would require all bikeways improvements to go to the local neighborhood council for approval. This from a guy who has worked the hardest in city council to keep neighborhood councils from gathering steam.
He has championed speed limit increases in his district over neighborhood council objections. But now, they become his ally (or tool) in fighting the LADOT who acted against his wishes.
Smith objects to the bike lanes on Wilbur Avenue, claiming cyclists are only 2% of the population and that they shouldn't get more than their share.
He forgets that when discussing Measure R, he fought to have the funding for bikeways improvements reduced below 0.75%, again arguing that cyclists should only get their fair share.
He apparently subscribes to the win-lose theory of transportation planning (wait until he finds out about the Complete Streets Act!) and is simply confused on what constitutes "fair share."
The upside to Smith's involvement in the brouhaha is his motion that now directs all transportation projects in the community to the neighborhood council, a position that empowers the community and introduces accountability and oversight to the mysteries of transportation.
4) LA Times incompetence: Sandy Banks wrote a column bemoaning the Wilbur Avenue "improvements" and demonstrates the casualness that is all too common at the LA Times. While the general public may not care too much about the difference between bike routes, bike lanes, and bike paths, one would think that journalists would at least attempt to differentiate between a $2K bike route and a $1.5MM bike path. (Wilbur gets neither but that doesn't stop the LA Times from getting them mixed up)
The LA Times refers to 400 miles of existing bikeways facilities, projects the addition 40 more per year for the next 20 years, and predicts a resulting 1600 miles of Bike lanes and paths. Whew! Too much cut-and-paste on the Mayor's press release! The reality is this, there are currently 58 miles of paths and 157 miles of lanes.
The proposed Bike Plan will result in 157 miles of paths and 213 miles of lanes. The Mayor's promise of 1600 miles includes 511 miles of studies, 101 miles of routes, and 651 miles of friendly streets. Step away from the Kool-Aid!
Banks (and the Times) can be forgiven the sloppy grasp of transportation designations and mathematical failures but the LA Times column inadvertently justifies "road diets" with when it protests the impact of the bike lanes on Wilbur.
Banks writes "For years, Wilbur Avenue had been a free-flowing community secret, a commuter street that bypassed the congestion of Northridge's main routes. Then a "street improvement" project last month turned our speedway into a parking lot."
The Wilbur "road diet" isn't a tool for benefiting cyclists, it's a strategy for getting Banks and other motorists to slow down, to stop using the smooth-flowing street as a cut-through alternative to the arterials that are congested. It is a tool for returning streets to the community, to the people who live in the neighborhood.
Through it all it is evident that the real clash of cultures is not between cyclists and motorists, nor is it between locals and cut-through traffic. It is between City Departments that operate with complete arrogance combined with contempt for the public and Neighborhood Councils, empowered by the City Charter to advise the Mayor and the City Council on the budget and the delivery of services.
The Wilbur Avenue fracas is dismissed by many as a tempest in a local neighborhood teapot but the impact will resonate throughout the city. This could be good for neighborhood councils, it could be good for local residents and merchants who are most directly impacted by cut-through traffic, and it could be good for people of all modes if we can work together and establish common ground.
For that to happen, it's important that puff pieces such as LA's proposed Bike Plan are analyzed for accuracy and held to a performance standard.
It's imperative that the Bike Plan be incorporated into the community plans and that it is integrated into LA's strategic transportation plan. Most importantly,
LA's proposed Bike Plan must satisfy the Complete Streets Act which goes in to effect on Jan 1, 2011.
(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.)
The single greatest threat to the status quo of transportation planning and development in the LA area is the Hippocratic Oath, the simple commitment to do no harm. "Primum non nocere."
Imagine if all transportation projects were first screened to eliminate the twin traps of over-treatment and therapeutic nihilism. Consider the benefit to the community if transportation authorities were responsible for the unintended consequences of "the cure." The practitioners of the 405/Sepulveda Pass project would be conducting business in a dramatically different fashion if they had started the journey by taking the Hippocratic Oath. Their current loyalty is to the $1 billion contract that directs the widening of the 405 in order to accommodate a northbound car-pool lane from the 10 freeway to the 101 freeway, not to the community it impacts.
When the "treatment" is completed, three bridges will have been replaced, 27 on-ramps and off- ramps will have been adjusted, and 13 underpasses and structures will have been widened.
When the "patient" awakens, freeway traffic will exit on "improved" off-ramps, entering the local community at freeway speeds. Enhanced integration between the freeway and adjacent streets will support local freeway-alternative traffic congestion. Widened streets with faster traffic will eliminate pedestrian traffic and render mass transit access obsolete.
The practitioners of the Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement would be developing a completely different project if they were to apply the simple standard of leaving things better than they found them. The current bridge has features that the proposed bridge lacks, resulting in a project that includes "engineered conflict."
The "patient" has long objected that the proposed bridge fails to plan for all modes of transportation and does not replace the current existing pedestrian walkway. Community members also point out that the proposed bridge fails to address a vision for connectivity, options for the future of Terminal Island. Project Managers dismiss the complaints as unnecessary, pointing out that it's simply a shipping route for trucks.
The Long Beach City Council agrees with the community and had to take formal action, simply to request that existing features be retained in the future. They concur with the Coastal Commission in recognizing that a $1 billion investment in connectivity is a half century commitment to the future of Terminal Island and to restrict that vision is to damn the "patient" to a life of shipping container storage.
Other projects such as the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway and the Sepulveda Reversible Lane demonstrate that there is no greater power than a funded project. In both cases, the inadvertent identification of a specific element required its inclusion in the final project, regardless of its appropriateness, simply because it was funded as named.
The Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway has 100 yards of dedicated Busway on the eastbound end of the 4.5 mile project, the last vestige of the original $93 million Busway project that proposed a bus lane down the center of Santa Monica Boulevard, from Beverly Hills to the 405. It's there to qualify for the funding, not because it belongs or serves any purpose.
The Sepulveda Reversible Lane has been reduced to 100 yards inside the Mullholland tunnel, the last vestige of an $11.3 million project that proposed reversible lanes from Wilshire Boulevard to Mullholland Boulevard. The project was funded, it has been absorbed into the 405/Sepulveda Pass project, and the reduced reversible element exists simply to qualify for the funding.
These projects demonstrate the need for a new paradigm for transportation planning and development.
1) The community benefit must be required, not negotiated. The W Hollywood Hotel has already experienced its first pedestrian death, caused by a truck driver leaving the facility and running over an old lady in the crosswalk. The negotiated "community benefits" included intersection improvements at all four corners, bulb-outs, ped scrambles, etc. but none of them "penciled out" meaning the developers do this for a living and the community is out-gunned.
2) The project must actually be an improvement, not simply an effort to churn funding. Funded projects that inadvertently include obsolete elements are dead. Improving the community is the objective, not simply funding transportation departments. Design & Build mandates encounter Stall & Defend opposition from the local community because they fail to consider the unintended consequences.
3) The project must leave the community better than before, not as the result of community intervention, but as the result of a simple guiding principle that is in the DNA of the project. The impact to the local community must be a priority and solutions that sever routes, restrict access, and increase cut-through traffic are not solutions, they are problems.
The largest developers in our community are Caltrans, Metro, and the CRA. The most significant amount of public money being spent on development is dedicated to transportation and transportation related projects. The greatest opportunity to improve the quality of life in our neighborhood is through responsible transportation planning and development that is community oriented.
The current struggle for the development and implementation of standards for Transit Oriented Development is left to the community while Metro and its development partners charge ahead.
The current struggle for traffic congestion relief that actually improves conditions instead of simply moving the problem to adjacent streets is left to the community while the Department of Transportation charges ahead.
LA's future as a Great City demands that all transportation development continue with a "do no harm" mandate and that it is supported with real community benefit standards as the foundation for progress, not simply the fallout of long protracted battles with the neighborhood.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)
The Department of City Planning is a lightning rod in the City of LA, drawing controversy and conflict its way no matter which direction it moves. At the same time, no city department has a greater responsibility for the quality of life in Los Angeles.
Land use issues are volatile, often leading to adversarial positioning that results in fractured communities. For too long, the LA has squandered incredible amounts of human infrastructure in project-by-project battles while the "Do Real Planning" banner wafts gently in the breeze. Some would suggest that planning became something that is done to the community not with the community.
All that may change if the Mayor and the City Council embrace the challenge of selecting a new City Planning Director and use it as an opportunity to reaffirm and revitalize City Planning. Now is the time to position a Director who will protect the future of Angelenos by developing a shared vision, by updating the General Plan and the Community Plans, and by partnering with the community to protect the quality of life in the neighborhood.
The actions of the Mayor and the City Council over the next few days will have a significant impact on the future of Los Angeles.
1) If the process of selecting and confirming the new Director of City Planning is open, engaged and transparent, the people of Los Angeles can expect the future of City Planning to be open, engaged and transparent. If the public isn't involved in the process, it sets the tone for the future of City Planning. Now is the time for the Mayor's office to embark on a tour of the city, engaging the public and providing Mr. LoGrande … the Mayor’s choice nominee for new City Planning Director … with an opportunity to connect.
When Chief Charlie Beck was nominated by the Mayor to lead the LAPD, Beck visited neighborhood councils, community groups and town halls throughout the city, establishing a standard and forging relationships that gave him a strong foundation upon which to build. The people of LA deserve no less as a Director is selected for City Planning.
2) If the mandate for the new Planning Director is to move all elements of City Planning "further, faster and more aggressively" then the people of Los Angeles can expect the future to include greater efficiencies in the movement of the good, the bad and the ugly.
Now is the time to position and support someone who can use LA's General Plan, Community Plans, Specific Plans, Master Plans and Vision Plans to make the projects that benefit our communities easier while making the projects that are at odds with our neighborhoods harder.
Speed, in and of itself, is not a community benefit but effective planning that improves the quality of life is. Most importantly, any movement must leave in its wake a significant commitment to infrastructure improvement, traffic mitigation, community space, connectivity and parkland that actually exists.
3) If the future of the Department of City Planning is one of greater efficiency and organizational effectiveness, but the current General Plan and Community Plans are out of date and lacking in common vision, then the City will just continue off-course with greater speed and impact. If the ongoing refinements (ex: 12-2 program) in process continue but are not partnered with sufficient enforcement authority, City Planning will simply become a higher volume "Department of Yes!"
The ability to say "No!" is as important as the ability to say "Yes!" and the community must fight for a City Planning Director who gets the title and the authority that must come with it or we are simply engaged in the process of selecting a spokesmodel for City Planning.
4) If the success of the City Planning Director requires a combination of diplomatic, political, and administrative skills and the ability to get the Planning Commission, the Area Commissions, the City Council's PLUM Committee and City Planning in sync, it is imperative that the community take a leadership role in communicating clearly that vision, priorities, standards and community benefits are the foundation, not the payoff, for real planning.
Now more than ever, the people of Los Angeles must stand up and take a leadership role in positioning City Planning and its new Director firmly on course, communicating clearly to the Mayor and the City Council that we're in this for the long haul.
In the spirit of implementing a long term vision for City Planning, the people of Los Angeles must step up and insist that the new Director of City Planning connects to the community he serves, that he engage the neighborhood councils in establishing standards, that he implement a foundation of community benefits, and that he commit to increasing the quality of life as a condition of development.
(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.)
The Metro's CEO, Art Leahy, refers to the Hollywood & Vine Metro Station as "a flagship transit HUB, one that should set the standard for the Metro's comprehensive transportation system." Gatehouse Capital refers to its W Hollywood Hotel & Residences Development as "a glamorous venue, one that will seduce you - mind, body and soul." Legacy Partners refers to its 1600 Vine Residential/Retail development as 1600 Vine as "a truly unique living experience full of comfort, urban conveniences, and contemporary amenities in one of Los Angeles’ most renowned locations."
Collectively, Hollywood & Vine is LA's largest Transit Oriented Development and it became a reality after a decade of grappling that saw the Metro, the CRA, the City of LA, the LADOT, the Chamber of Commerce, lawyers, developers, investors, activists, neighborhood councils, artists, merchants, and neighbors all working to protect their interest in one of the most iconic intersections on earth. Now that the dust has cleared, the awesome magnitude of the Hollywood & Vine TOD has become the standard for future Transit Oriented Development projects.
I think that's a problem.
For all of the celebratory ribbon cutting, soft focus photo opps and champagne toasts, the details matter and the Hollywood & Vine TOD is missing some significant details that go a long way to demonstrating a commitment to people who walk, who ride a bike, who simply want to enjoy public space and who believe that a TOD is something more than an interchange, that it is a significant place, one that is made for people.
Missing from the Hollywood & Vine project is a Bike HUB, a community benefit that is provided by the Metro, the CRA, Gatehouse Capital, and Legacy Partners. This simple commitment to supporting cyclists goes a long way to demonstrating a commitment to TOD projects which purportedly serve cyclists, pedestrians, mass transit passengers and the immediate community.
1) The Hollywood & Vine project has overbuilt on its motor vehicle parking requirements, demonstrating a bias that encourages vehicle trips instead of working to reducing congestion by reducing the number of generated vehicle trips.
2) The Hollywood & Vine project has failed to provide the bike parking as required by LA's Municipal Code, a fact that failed to trigger a response from Building & Safety, a department that never invokes any bike parking minimums in spite of the law.
3) The Hollywood & Vine project unfolded over several years and during that time, the community requested a Community Car Share program, a Community Bike Share program, and a Community delivery service but none of the promises turned into reality.
4) The Hollywood & Vine project received concessions and funding and legal support (eminent domain) based on its claims of a positive impact on the community, the economy, the traffic, and the quality of life as a whole for those who live in Hollywood, those who work in Hollywood and those who visit Hollywood.
5) The Hollywood & Vine project claims to be a Transit Oriented Development, a designation that includes a commitment to cyclists, pedestrians, vibrant street life and a connectivity to the community.
All of this being said, I look at the two-thirds of a billion dollar H'wood & Vine TOD Fortress and I ask "Where's the Bike HUB?"
I propose that the Metro and the CRA and Gatehouse Capital and Legacy Partners get together and immediately implement a Bike HUB program at Hollywood & Vine and I've got the location already selected. (There are actually three great locations, one on Hollywood Blvd., one on Argyle, and this great location on Vine)
Imagine a Bike HUB on Vine Ave., a bike shop for locals where cyclists can work on their bikes as well as store them in a secured environment. The Bike HUB could also offer a Bike Share for locals and a Bike Rental for tourists. In addition, the Bike HUB could serve as a Visitor's Center for tourists who simply need info on the neighborhood. Good for cyclists, good for the residents, good for the tourists, good for business and great for transit, offering Metro passengers a "last mile" option.
It is imperative that we set professional standards for active transportation and that we firmly establish "last-mile" elements into any TOD programming. The folks at Bikestation have a strong support track record for providing innovative solutions to unique transit opportunities and Hollywood is the capital of innovation and opportunity.
Now, more than ever, it's important that we set a standard at the Hollywood & Vine TOD, that we firmly establish a standard for a Bike HUB and that we make it a robust success, with the support of professionals such as the folks at Bikestation, with the support of the Metro and the CRA, with the support of Gatehouse and Legacy, and with the support of the community.
What happens in Hollywood will set the course for the future.
The Backbone Bikeway Network is a simple yet significant commitment to supporting cyclists and their fundamental need to travel to the same destinations that attract those using other modes of transportation. Cyclists travel across town from east to west, from north to south, and the Backbone simply establishes a basic framework of priority corridors and a strategy for supporting a cyclist's freedom to move. This is the foundation of LA's Best Bike Plan as articulated in the vision statement "Every street is a street that cyclists will ride."
The Backbone requires little, if any, funding in order to become a significant improvement over the status quo. The City of Los Angeles already provides many services that are key to making the Backbone the foundation for cross-town cycling, including law enforcement, routine maintenance, and prioritized repairs. Now is the time to focus them on the removal of obstacles so that the Backbone flows.
Imagine if the LAPD would use the Backbone Bikeways Network as a training tool to reinforce with the patrol officers that cyclists ride the streets, that they have the right to take the lanes, that they need to get to the same destinations as others and that they are a part of the traffic mix, not an exception. Couple this "learning opportunity" with enhanced law enforcement and speed limit enforcement and cyclists would enjoy an already funded but inconsistent public service, one that would contribute dramatically to the success of the Backbone.
Imagine if the Bureau of Street Services would give the Backbone priority maintenance, sweeping the curb lanes and keeping the gutters cleared, something that typically happens on secondary streets and side streets in residential areas but rarely on the larger cross-town routes. Just like in snow country, there should be a hierarchy of streets that receive maintenance attention. It would benefit all modes to put the focus on the Backbone, especially cyclists. Clean curb lanes allow a cyclist to ride a straight line because they don't need to dodge broken glass and debris. Cyclists will be able to give more attention to the traffic around them if they can spend less time watching for obstacles.
Imagine if the Bureau of Public Works gave the Backbone priority repairs, conducting street work and revitalization according to real priorities of traffic rather than political pressure. In Hollywood, we've got side streets getting resurfaced but the section of Santa Monica from the 101 Freeway to La Brea has a curb lane that is simply un-ridable. Wilshire Blvd. has a curblane that has cars and buses dodging asphalt drift and potholes which is unsafe for everybody. None of this is good for the efficient flow of traffic.
The real immediate impact of the Backbone Bikeway Network is that it provides the City of Los Angeles a focus point for the delivery of services and an opportunity to invest in "human infrastructure" instead of more cement. The significant value to be gained from the implementation of the Backbone Bikeway Network is the change in attitude, in philosophy, in actions and it starts with an investment in education, encouragement, and enforcement.
During conversations over the Backbone, many suggestions have come up about the different opportunities to implement engineering solutions ranging from the "floating bike paths" to the "K-Rail separation scheme" to simpler bike lane and sharrow solutions and that is a conversation that will take place over time. The solutions will result from a robust process and they remain to be seen.
For now, I recommend that the Backbone be established with great wayfinding that serves as a confirmation and as an "invitation to ride." Great cities such as Munich, Sydney and San Francisco have wayfinding signs that direct cyclists to the popular destinations and have simple distances and route identities labeled. The establishment of the Backbone and the supporting signage is the foundation of LA's commitment to connectivity and to supporting basic access and mobility.
As for additional enhancements, this is the time to position a commitment to "neighborhood pilot projects" as the next layer of Backbone effectiveness. Now is the time to get sensitive to the community and the local environment and to use this as an opportunity to engage the public in the development of innovations instead of tired template solutions.
I'm guessing that Alex has a different idea for Venice Blvd. than what Mihai might propose for Wilshire/Westwood. I'm certain that Ron will have a great solution for Santa Monica through Beverly Hills that will be nothing like Jeremy's ideas for Wilshire in K-Town. I know Enci has ideas for Hollywood, that Dan has plans for Sunset and that Mark can certainly make Vermont a better street to ride.
Regardless of what these folks come up with, we can rest assured that it will pale in comparison to what Josef has in store for Figueroa Avenue in Highland Park. The ideas and the solutions will vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and will address the many unique circumstances that occur throughout the LA area. But they all have one thing in common, the Backbone commitment to facilitating and supporting cyclists as they ride to same destinations as everybody else.
The Backbone foundation supported by "human infrastructure" allows us to position "neighborhood pilot projects" so that innovations with community support can be implemented, increasing through-put with speed moderation, limiting friction by enhancing curb lanes, calming traffic with road diets and traffic calming, enhancing capacity with speed management and synchronization, and enhancing connectivity with local communities by involving them in the process.
The League of American Bicyclists has a Bike Friendly America program that evaluates communities based on the "5 E's" which are Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Encouragement and Evaluation. Cities such as Portland and Boulder have achieved Platinum status, while San Francisco and Seattle have picked up Gold awards. In the LA area, Long Beach, Claremont, Santa Clarita and Santa Monica have all received slight nods from the League.
A couple of years ago, the Bike Writers Collective started pushing for the inclusion of Equality as the 6th E, a campaign that paralleled the efforts of Long Beach cycling advocate and CABO Director Dan Gutierrez who has been pushing for "Equality."
Imagine if we left the LAB behind and went beyond the "Bike Friendly" concept, instead using the Backbone Bikeway Network to lay down a LEED street program that went beyond the "6 E's," adding the Environment and the Economy as standards for performance. LEED standard streets would be vital connectors, not dividers, they would lose the "traffic sewer" status and instead became lifelines that enhanced the quality of life in a community instead of imposing a state of siege on a neighborhood.
LEED standard streets would have a positive impact on street life, on the reduction of crime, on the improvement of health, on revitalizing property values, and on the local economy. The benefits of a Backbone Bikeway Network go way beyond simply access for cyclists and is the foundation for a new approach to mobility.
The Backbone Bikeway Network is an important opportunity for the City of Los Angeles to embark on a journey of commitment, a journey of innovation, a journey of community building and it all starts on the streets of LA.
The change we want will take place because we ride, not because we want to ride or because we think about riding or because we plan to ride, it will take place because our actions will change the character of Los Angeles, and the development of that "human infrastructure" is of greater value than all of the cement and paint in the world.
As for me, I'll be riding the Backbone and I'll see you on the Streets!
As thousands of cars idled in gridlock that resulted in miles of parked cars, LA's Park Rangers focused on the arrival of 50 cyclists, complete with General Services Bike Police escort, and stood prepared to enforce a law they couldn't identify, following the orders of people they can't identify, and finally writing me a ticket for "FAILING TO COMPLY WITH TRAFFIC CONTROL OFCR."
Friday, December 18th, marked the end of the pedestrian nights at the Griffith Park Festival of Lights and the beginning of the vehicular nights. To the city's credit, there were 14 pedestrian nights and there will be 13 vehicular nights, marking the first time in 14 years that the car-free nights outnumber the vehicular nights. As for cyclists, there was the token press conference "Bike-Night" and then nothing but the traditional "it's for your own safety" exclusion from the vehicular nights.
For the last four years, cyclists have ridden the Festival of RIGHTS, decorating their bikes and howling at the moon, riding the Festival a few rounds and challenging the prohibition on cyclists. This year was no different. Well, not much. When we arrived at Mulholland Fountain for the traditional milling about and socializing, there were two General Services Bike Cops who were very polite and friendly and who told us it was their responsibility to escort us safely through the Festival of Lights.
We rode, we howled, we enjoyed riding Griffith Park and we made lots of friends along the ride. At least that's what it sounded like as the cyclists and the people stuck in gridlock exchanged holiday greetings.
As we regrouped at the Zoo parking lot, we encountered Sgt. Kilpatrick of LA Rec and Parks. He artfully moved his vehicle so as to block us and then gave us a series of explanations on why we couldn't ride the streets of Griffith Park. I asked him under whose authority he was prohibiting cyclists while we watched the public drive their cars on the street right behind him. He said they were Rec and Park streets and they could exclude cyclists. I invoked State Law, pointing out that Los Angeles may be a big city but it hardly trumps State Law and CVC 21 is the Uniformity Code and it guarantees me the right to ride the streets that are open to the motoring public.
Sgt. Kilpatrick then invoked the special event argument, I responded by asking for the permit. He had none. I asked for his supervisor, he said he was it. I asked who gave the instructions to prohibit cyclists, he didn't know. We chatted for a while and he was very polite but firm, he said he would cite us if we violated the ban on cyclists in the park during the Festival of Lights. I asked what law would be violated and he didn't know. He really didn't know what law because when he wrote the ticket, it was for failing to comply.
Here are a few problems:
1) "It's for your own safety!" is code for getting cyclists out of the way of the motorists. It's not about our safety or the streets would be cleared of motor vehicles, intersections would be grade separated and motorists would be banned from the park. It's about moving motor vehicles and the plan was prepared by engineers who can't conceive of what to do with all of the humans.
2) Simple attempts to restrict cyclists must be resisted as a matter of principle. Los Altos went so far as to paint "NO BIKES" on El Monte Road before cyclists protested and won. Pasadena drafted an ordinance restricting cyclists from riding two abreast, making it to the second reading before cyclists again prevailed. In both cases, CVC 21 was invoked and used to demonstrate that local municipalities don't have the authority to restrict cyclists unless specifically articulated in the CVC. (Bike licenses, sidewalk riding and cyclists on the freeways are the exceptions) The Griffith Park prohibition is one of tradition and it is inappropriate and illegal.
3) The prohibition has no "Owner" and there is no accountability. Did Councilman Tom LaBonge direct the Park Rangers and the LADOT to prohibit cyclists from the Festival of Lights? Did the DWP determine that the Festival would be safer with no cyclists? Was it the LADOT who prepared the traffic plan for the Festival and determined that the two hour trek through the gridlock would be safer for the motorists if the cyclists were banned? Was it the Park Rangers who banded together and proposed a cyclist-free Festival? Why is it so hard to find the person behind the directive?
4) Sgt. Kilpatrick is in his third decade of service as a Peace Officer. How is it he stands prepared to enforce a ban on cyclists on the streets of Griffith Park, yet he can't identify the supporting law, he can't identify the authority who gave him his orders and he can't even offer up a reasonable defense of the absurd policy. He is the guy in charge. I would hope that he is enough of a professional to recognize that a man of his experience and his level of authority is of value because he thinks, because he asks questions and because he does what's right, not just what he's told. We are so far beyond the "I'm just following orders." days and the City of Los Angeles deserves better from those who operate under the color of authority. Putting on a badge and a gun means stepping up and doing what's right, not simply what is anonymously passed down as a directive.
5) The City of LA is in the midst of the worst budget crisis in our lifetimes. Rita Robinson, the GM of the LADOT, just met with the neighborhood council reps to tell them that the year-long Memorandum of Understanding meetings would not result in an MOU because she was unable to make any commitments in the middle of the current budget and staffing crisis. How then does she find the money to pay LADOT Traffic Officers to work Griffith Park wrangling the tens of thousands of motor vehicles that jam up the park and the surrounding community. Who is paying for the LADOT staff?
6) Rec and Parks stands to lose over 200 members of their staff as a result of the Early Retirement Incentive Plan. The department is in turmoil and local communities are being told that their parks are in danger of being closed and services restricted, all as a result of the budget meltdown. Meanwhile, the Park Rangers are out in Griffith Park with all of the trucks and gear, looking for cyclists who threaten the stability of the eco-system with their nefarious plan to ...ride their bikes on Crystal Springs Drive, the one with the bike lanes that get decommissioned during the holiday season to make room for more cars. Who is setting the Park Ranger priorities and who is directing them during the Festival of Lights?
7) The DWP has hosted the Light Festival ever since then-City Council President John Ferraro helped them think of it 14 years ago. How does the DWP get to host the Festival of Lights without pulling a permit, without paying fees that other organizations would have to pay if they wanted to put on a special event and dramatically impact the operation of the park as well as the surrounding community. How did the DWP avoid the rules and regulations and fees that apply to all other community groups and non-profits and special events?
8) The traffic on the 5 Freeway gets congested all the way back to the 134 Freeway, requiring mitigation and supervision from Caltrans and the CHP. In the last 14 years, have the operators of the Festival of Lights taken responsibility for evaluating the impact of the Festival on the freeway and on the safety of those who are caught in the congestion? Are Caltrans and the CHP voluntary partners with the Festival of Lights or are they simply responding to the disruption of service on the freeway?
Councilman Tom LaBonge of CD4, Jon Kirk Mukri of Rec and Parks, Rita Robinson of LADOT, and David Freeman of the DWP are all, at some point in time, referred to as the authority and the one in charge when it comes to the DWP's Festival of Lights in Griffith Park.
One of them needs to step up and take responsibility for the Festival of Lights.
That person needs to reconcile the current Festival of Lights with the Mayor's commitment to making LA the Greenest Big City.
That person needs to reconcile the current Festival of Lights with the City's current budget crisis.
That person needs to reconcile the current Festival of Lights with the Mayor's recent acknowledgment that he and the City of LA don't do enough for cyclists.
Most of all, that person needs to rise to the occasion and give the people of LA hope that even in the midst of these dire straits, there are people within the City of LA who will do what's best for the people of LA.
Happy Holidays and I look forward to seeing you on the streets of Griffith Park.
The Measure R feeding frenzy has just begun and LA's Department of Transportation has already created a cloud of confusion as it sets out to convince the City Council that when distributing $181.2 million in Local Return funds, the 10% Bike/Ped allocation amounts to $10.8 million. (Shouldn't it be $18.1 million?) The LADOT continues by referring to the Administrative Cost of $3.5 million as 2% (fair enough) and the Local Match set-aside of $73.4 million as 3% (not even close!) This bit of financial alchemy demonstrates the LADOT's knack for telling the truth, only the truth but not the whole truth.
At issue is the distribution of the Measure R Local Return funds which amount to 15% of the $30-40 billion that the Metro will collect over the next 30 years as a result of the half-percent sales tax increase that was approved by voters last year.
Relying on the Metro's revenue estimates, the City of Los Angeles anticipates collecting $181.2 million in Local Return funds over the next five years and is poised to approve a plan at Wednesday's Transportation Committee meeting that will lay down a budget for the funds that have been accruing since this past July.
During the contentious process that preceded the approval of Measure R, the 15% Local Return was conceived in response to the objections of the communities and constituent groups. They argued that Measure R would cost them money but yield them no specific returns.
By design, the 15% Local Return funds would empower locals with funds to support the projects that were not specifically included in the Measure R budget and long range transportation plan.
When the Measure R Ordinance was presented to the voters, Local Return projects were defined as "major street resurfacing, rehabilitation and reconstruction; pothole repair; left turn signals; bikeways; pedestrian improvement; streetscapes; signal synchronization; and transit" and it was to be distributed on a per capita basis.
Demonstrating a bookkeeping style that must be the envy of Hollywood Studios and Three Card Monte dealers alike, the LADOT and its Interdepartmental Committee (IDC) partners are proposing a budget that calculates on gross revenues when necessary to diminish (admin costs just 2% of gross,) on net proceeds in order to enhance (bike/ped funds are fully 10% of net,) and on unrelated figures in an effort to distract (3% local match is based on another budget!)
Most disturbing is that the IDC proposes to start the process of budgeting for the anticipated Local Return revenue by funneling 40.5% ($73.4 million) back to the Metro to satisfy LA's "3% local match contribution" to the Measure R "mega transit/rail projects" which include the Crenshaw Transit Corridor, Canoga Transit Line, and the Subway to the Sea Projects. (this is where "3%" actually amounts to 40.5%)
There are three significant problems with this the LADOT and IDC proposed budget:
First, the immediate and local transportation needs of LA communities should not have to compete with the "mega" projects of the region. The Local Return funding was established to prevent the project vs. project drama that is divisive to the community. The Local Return funds must be spent on Local Return projects, not siphoned off for "mega" match obligations.
Second, playing fast and loose with the percentages leaves naive bike/ped advocates lined up with their porridge bowls, thinking that when the LADOT promises 10%, it means 10%. It doesn't. It means 6%.
The only way to fix this is to take the $3.5 million in Administrative Costs and the $3.8 million in Council Office Discretionary Funds, and add them to the current $10.8 million bike/ped allocation. This totals $18.1 million, which amounts to 10% of the anticipated Local Return of $181.2 million over the next 5 years.
Third, this whole process demonstrates the real need for a Transportation Vision that commits Los Angeles to a robust and comprehensive transportation system, one based on equality and a commitment to creating real transportation choices for everybody. At the federal and the state level, the simple standard is to accommodate people of all modes all the time.
Yet in Los Angeles, cyclists compete with street furniture for funding, pedestrians compete with transit passengers, motorists compete with each other, council districts compete with their constituents, and city departments simply grab their budgets and hide.
The people of Los Angeles need to demand a real Transportation Vision, the LADOT needs to step away from the cash-box, and the bike/ped advocates need to count their change before they leave the window.
(Stephen Box is a transportation advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘
The City of LA's recently released Draft Bike Plan has stirred so much controversy, the cycling community moved right past "public comment" and convened the LA Bike Working Group in an effort to simply go to work drafting "LA's Best Bike Plan."
Drawing people from all over the city and from all walks of life, the first Bike Working Group (BWG) took place this past Saturday in Hollywood, one of the communities that the LADOT and City Planning continue to overlook as they schedule workshops for the Draft Bike Plan process.
The BWG opened up the Draft Bike Plan for discussion and then drew the participants into the process of actually creating a real Bike Plan, rather than simply commenting on somebody else's version. From the opening vision to the need for imperative language, to the standards and designations to the tools for implementation, the entire document is open to revision or replacement.
The release of a "plan" is no news in Los Angeles, a city where at any given moment there are a dozen Community Plans in various states of revision along with an assortment of Master Plans, Specific Plans, Strategic Plans, Overlays, Surveys and Zones, all of which demonstrate that if nothing else, Los Angeles has big plans.
Typically generating little interest from the community, plans such as this are usually decent paydays for a consultant, all in fulfillment of some funding mandate that requires a municipality to maintain a "City Council approved Transportation Plan" in order to qualify for funding that will likely get cobbled together with other funding sources, all of which slips into a murky mess that defies oversight.
According to the Draft Bike Plan, in the last 13 years the City of Los Angeles has spent $65 Million on Bikeways amenities. During that time they have built "13 miles of Bike Paths, 55 miles of Bike Lanes and 6 miles of Bike Routes." I'm sure there are other elements in there such as bike racks, bike maps, little blinkie lights and racing socks. But $65 Million? This Draft Bike Plan is a cry for help, better yet a cry for an audit.
As the LADOT and City Planning come up on the two year anniversary of the initiation of the Draft Bike Plan process, it is apparent that this plan is worse than a mess, that it is a boiler-plate document rife with mistakes and lacking even the simplest attempt or ambition to improve over the old 1996/2002 Bike Plan that currently reigns as the Bike Plan of record.
Two weeks ago at the NC Action Summit, Dr. Alex Thompson presented, as one of the six action issues on the agenda, the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. He called on the neighborhood council members at the Summit to take the CBR to their respective NC's for endorsement and then he went further, urging them to ask for a longer comment period for the just released Draft Bike Plan and to use the CBR as the starting point in their examination of the plan.
Since that time, the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils voted unanimously to ask the City of Los Angeles to extend the comment period for the Draft Bike Plan from 42 days to a minimum of 90 days in order to allow the NC's to analyze the plan and to offer comments.
The City's Bicycle Advisory Committee also voted unanimously, this time to "demand" an extension of the comment period for the Draft Bike Plan from 42 days to 94 days, ending on January 8th, 2010.
As neighborhood councils grapple with their committee and board schedules in an effort to add their voices to the call for a lengthened comment period, a survey of the Draft Bike Plan revealed the true motivation for the enthusiastic push for an accelerated approval process, the document is a pro forma mess!
The LA Bike Working Group will convene again on Saturday, October 31, 2009 at 1 pm to continue with creation of LA's Best Bike Plan. For information visit http://LABikePlan.com.
As for the other issues from the NC Action Summit, the next meeting of the Rate Payers Advocate Task Force will be on October 24 at 1pm, immediately following the SLAP meeting. (4th Saturday). For more information visit the DWP Ratepayer Advocate.
Also meeting on the 24th is the Sidewalk Repair Task Force, at 1pm, immediately following the SLAP meeting. (4th Saturday) For more information visit the Sidewalk Repair Program.
Meetings location: Hollywood City Hall 6501 Fountain Avenue Hollywood, CA 90038
(Stephen Box is a cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘
Saturday's NC Action Summit was a tremendous success from my perspective and I learned a great deal. It was an ambitious event, literally 10 pounds of meeting packed into a five pound agenda and as the emcee, I found it to be quite a challenge to keep things on track. Ultimately, I'm proud of the organizers, the participants and of the results. The NC Action Summit set out to create a forum for neighborhood council stakeholders to take on the issues that are relevant to the community, all with "Less Talk, More Action!"
That was a worthy goal but the first thing I learned on Saturday is that the "talk" is an important part of the "action" and the trick is not to limit, but to balance. There is no way to get to action without accommodating the public's need to be heard, to clear the air, to sound off and to deliver the anecdotes, the experiences, the defining moments that stirred the passion and prompted the public to give up their Saturday to get involved. It all starts with talk and it is, for many people, the action. I've learned to respect the important role 'talk" plays in "action."
The Summit had quite an ambitious agenda and we structured a schedule that in hindsight, could have been a tad more flexible.
Some issues went quickly, some went slowly and some were quite intense and were schedule busters.
I've been to meetings where success is based on adherence to the schedule, I've been to meetings where success is based on addressing every item on the agenda and hearing from every person. The real test of the NC Action Summit's success will not be based on our schedule or our open participation, it will be based on our ability to translate the event into results and I'm very optimistic.
We worked the agenda, people participated and I've learned that the event will be judged based on the next 90 days.
The event had something for everybody and for me, I was quite pleased with the outcome for the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. Dr. Alex Thompson, member of the Bike Writers Collective, Co-founder of the BikeRoWave, and Co-author of the CBR gave a presentation and engaged in a robust interaction with the public.
For all of the focus on action, this interaction was as valuable because we were able to hear concerns, misunderstandings, fears, new ideas and great suggestions, all of which we never hear in traditional settings at City Hall, Council Committee or Departmental presentations.
The Cyclists' Bill of Rights received a 50 to 1 vote of endorsement and Thompson gave a call for action, urging the audience to get their respective neighborhood councils to call for an extension on the city's Bike Plan comment period to 90 days, currently scheduled for 42 days and closing on November 6th, effectively leaving the NC's out of the comment loop.
The proposed comment period would end on Jan 4th allowing community members to evaluate the Bike Plan, take it to committee and then the board, offering an opinion on the Bike Plan and the improvements or lack of improvements in each NC.
Jeff Jacobberger offered to assist NC's in evaluating the Bike Plan and in inventorying any proposals or projected improvements in the community and the Bike Writers Collective will send speakers to any NC with the Cyclists' Bill of Rights on their agenda for endorsement.
I'm really encouraged that the Cyclists' Bill of Rights received such a great reception from the community and I'm also encouraged to see the cycling community engaging the neighborhood councils and looking for common ground.
At the end of the day, for all of the issues and all of the discussion and all of the commitment to action, the most significant part of the day for me was the fact that I had participated in the maiden voyage of LA's Government 2.0 and that real change is on the horizon.
Saturday's NC Action Summit was the significant first step.
The City of Los Angeles is in the middle of a budget crisis, something the public hears about at every opportunity as the newest excuse for mediocrity becomes part of the bureaucratic vernacular. It's times like this when the best thing community members can do is to step up and to lighten the load of the overworked and underpaid municipal workers who must also grapple with long commutes to their own communities.
This is when Government 2.0 takes over, the time when folks simply make it happen and that is the simple mandate of the Department of DIY.
The Department of DIY, authorized by the City through its inactivity and failure to perform, has seized the opportunity and the empty dirt lot on the corner of Wilshire and Vermont, proudly announcing that this is the future home of the Alprentice "Bunchy" Carter Community Park. This corner lot is huge dirt lot and it sits at the busy corner of a densely populated and heavily traveled transit corridor. Currently surrounded by sand bags and chain link fencing, the large sign proudly proclaims:
COMING SOON: A PARK FOR THE PEOPLE
The City of Los Angeles is pleased to announce the future home of the Alprentice ‘Bunchy’ Carter community park in collaboration with Park[ing] Day and their vision of a greener, brighter, more democratic Los Angeles.
Amenities will include permit-free vending, a skate/bike park, community garden plots, farmers market, jogging path and sports field. There will be AA, Crafts, Senior and Nutrition programs.
Today is election day here in Los Angeles and the residents of Council District 2 will be voting in a special election to select a Councilmember to fill the seat vacated by the former Councilmember Wendy Greuel when she was elected as LA's City Controller. LA's Cyclistas will remember Greuel as the chairperson of the Transportation Committee, a fairly jovial group of people who endorsed the Cyclists Bill of Rights, reorganized the Bicycle Advisory Committee, repealed the Bike Licensing Law and jumped up and down and made the appropriate noises when we Stormed the Bastille. Ah, this has been such a great year!
Today, the mix of power shifts ever so slightly but possibly significantly. It all depends on the voters.
Los Angeles has a Mayor and a City Council made up of 15 Councilmembers. A significant number of those in office are lame ducks, politicians in their last term who can't run for reelection. The person who wins the CD2 seat is in a position to set the tone for the next round of candidates who run for the even numbered seats in 2011. That's seven seats and the person who wins today will be setting the pace for that race. As for today, there are ten candidates and it's a bit late to try to cover the many issues and the many positions and the many debates and the many forums. Suffice to say that there are two kinds of candidates, those who embrace the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and those who don't.
Allow me to present video comments from four of the candidates followed by text from two of the candidates. Of the remaining four candidates, they had their chance, they had their opportunity, they missed out on the Cyclistas of Los Angeles and that's on them..
If you live in CD2, please, vote for those who love their local cyclists, after all, as printed in the LATimes:
Love your local bicyclists
By Stephen Box December 27, 2007
The most elegant solution to L.A. traffic is simply to pedal to where you need to go. If cycling is not for you, at least give some respect to those who choose to ride. Here's why: Cyclists are the "indicator species" for a healthy community.
Cyclists favor well-maintained streets free of potholes and debris. They prefer streets with moderate vehicle volumes and speeds, an environment that is likewise safer and more hospitable for drivers and pedestrians.
Surveys in San Francisco found that local businesses benefited from "traffic calming" through their districts, which included accommodations for cyclists.
Finally, an increase in the number of cyclists in a neighborhood -- which means more eyes on the street -- has a direct relationship to a reduction in crime.
In other words, what's good for cyclists is good for your community.
Now get out and vote! (Los Angeles’ Second Council District stretches from Mulholland Drive in the Hollywood Hills to Big Tujunga Road in the Verdugo Hills. Communities include Lake View Terrace, La Tuna Canyon, North Hollywood, Shadow Hills, Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Sunland, Sun Valley, Tujunga, Valley Village, Valley Glen and Van Nuys)
Q: One of the ways that a City Council Member can effect change for non-motorized users is by appointing informed activists to the city's Bicycle Advisory Committee and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Are you familiar with community activists who could best serve an appointed position on these committees?
A: I consider Stephen Box to be my advisor on these issues and would surely appoint him to Transportation, or recommend him in advisory capacity if given the chance by the voters. I would also consider Stephen to be on the staff for CD-2 if he was interested. Should he desire to remain an unpaid adviser, better for the city budget, but I personally think his input and dedication are worthy of a city salary.
Q: One of the ways that a City Council Member can effect change for non-motorized users is by appointing informed activists to the city's Bicycle Advisory Committee and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Are you familar with community activists who could best serve an appointed position on these committees?
A: Yes. During the last several months on the campaign trail, I have had the pleasure of meeting so many activists who care so much about the future of our community. This includes the indefatigable Stephen Box who educated me about the importance of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, of which I am a supporter.
Hollywood's leadership has made commitments to "stimulating development" and "ending homelessness forever" but a simple glance at the construction sites for the W Hotel and the Villas at Gower reveals that the commitment is uneven.
The W Hollywood Hotel & Residences is a massive mixed use project at the corner of Hollywood Boulevard & Argyle, spread over five acres and in the final stages of completion.
The project has relied on public funds to get off the ground, CRA use of Eminent Domain and incredible amounts of LA's political muscle in order to navigate and overcome the significant objections and concerns of the community.
The rapid construction and the abundant integration of huge, lucrative billboards in the structures exoskeleton bear witness to the simple fact that when the leadership of this city want something done, it gets done.
Two blocks away, on Gower Avenue just north of Hollywood Boulevard, sits a large empty dirt lot that was the former home to apartments, affordable housing and the local Traveler's Aid office, all razed in order to make way for the ambitious Villas at Gower, a permanent supportive housing complex that uses an innovative "housing first" approach to addressing the needs of the chronic homeless.
The failure to break ground at this site and the absence of progress in addressing homelessness in Hollywood, in spite of the infusion of public funds, CRA use of Eminent Domain and incredible amounts of LA's political talk, the project lies dormant with nothing but dirt clods, sandbags and a chainlink fence. Witness to the fact that when the leadership of this city doesn't care, nothing gets done.
Both projects have been in play for years. Both projects came with a great deal of controversy and both projects had significant interaction with the community in order to engage the local residents and to purportedly pursue solutions that were robust and came with significant neighborhood support.
Both projects came with support from LA's leadership and yet, at the end of the day, it is evident that when it comes to developing luxury housing for the "haves" and supportive housing for the "have-nots" Councilman Eric Garcetti's enthusiasm is uneven and inconsistent, in spite of the tough talk and in spite of the strong verbal commitments.
Based on results, often harsh but always fair, it's safe to say that when it comes to revitalizing the community of Hollywood, developers will always have a partner within the city of Los Angeles. The homeless are on their own.
This imbalance in priorities leaves local residents to fend for themselves as they deal with issues such as blighted properties, homelessness and public safety.
Conspiracy theorists might propose that the cumbersome public process is designed to wear out the community opposition and to cause the public to simply exhaust themselves before wandering off to howl at the moon over some other civic issue, leaving the politicos and their development partners to play hard and fast with the public funds that serve as redevelopment seed money for ongoing revitalization shell game.
Countering that argument is a quote attributed to former City Councilmember Ruth Galanter "Whenever I hear rumors of a conspiracy, I simply attribute it to incompetence."
Four years ago, a rumor of the CRA's proposed Gower homeless facility rippled through the community. Quick research was done and the Hollywood United Neighborhood Council convened a community meeting to address the proposed site, the facility, the services and the concerns of the community.
As in most cases, the lack of information allowed rumor and fear to run rampant and to generate a great deal of misinformation, resulting in hundreds of people all worked up and yelling and ready to fight, not knowing what the fight was but committed to protecting the status quo from the unknown.
I naively invited the local City Council staff, thinking this was something that would interest them, unaware that they were behind it. Three CD staff members attended the meeting, silently, and it wasn't until later that I discovered that one of them was engaged to a board member of the neighborhood council who served as co-chair of the PLUM committee. What a small world. What a learning experience!
As a member of the Villas at Gower Community Advisory Committee, I've been there through thick and thin, jumping at short notice to participate in meetings that address everything from the project scope to the selection of development partners to the selection of the architect to, hopefully the development of the project.
Four years is quite a long time for volunteers and life has a way of taking over. The local CD staff has turned twice and the CRA's project manager retired and we're on our second architect. Through it all I think I've learned a few things.
1) The community engagement process might not really be a charade, but it looks like one, it feels like one and it acts like one. If it's not a charade, it's simply incompetence.
Sadly this demonstrates that the CRA is either unable or unwilling to engage the neighborhood, to develop community support and to involve locals in the revitalization of Hollywood, an endeavor that is fueled with our money.
Community meetings seem designed to exhaust the community, giving everybody the opportunity to sound off and to relieve themselves of any objections.
If that's the case, the potential partnership and the contributions of the community are lost on the final project and the ultimate result is a disengaged community, less likely to come to the aid of the CRA when it needs help. (Such as last month when Mayor Villaraigosa staged a press conference on top of the Music Box with the W Hotel in the background, fighting to salvage the CRA's funds from the State budget brouhaha.)
2) The development process is ripe for abuse and the rewards go to those who work the system best, not those who are best qualified.
The first architect on the Gower project, Michael Maltzan, was referred to in a review as possessing a "bedside manner that exceeded his body of work." He lived up to that evaluation, charming the CRA, the community, the development partners. The guy was a rock star. He was also a better negotiator than the CRA, demonstrating that bedside manner trumps architectural talent but that the ability to manipulate the system trumps all.
We were well on our way down the concept and design path when the CRA discovered that their contracts had never actually been executed. Much work had been completed and yet there was no binding contract. It was at this point, that Maltzan upped the ante and claimed he couldn't do the work without a significant increase in his fee. The guy is good! He worked the CRA, squeezed them and proved to be a formidable negotiator. Then he walked, unable to get his fee. A long waste of time journey that could have been avoided if the CRA was motivated or skilled enough to negotiate at the same level as those who do this for a living.
3) The partnership process seems based on a pursuit of low-maintenance rather than high-performance relationships.
The CRA worked with McCormack Baron to develop and manage Metro Hollywood, a mixed-use project at Hollywood & Western. Two of the four ground floor spaces have never seen a tenant, the property manager seems unaware of the homeless encampment just to the west of the building's front door, the open space serves as a public restroom for the squatters, and overall perception of the community is that the facility contributes to the blight in the neighborhood. Yet the CRA just entered into a $15 million relationship with McCormack Barron for another TOD project, based on the success of Metro Hollywood. How are these relationships reviewed?
How is performance measured?
Is it simply based on the applicant's ability to navigate the system or is it because of the robust and successful projects and the relationships with the community?
4) The success of the CRA's projects is based on the completion of brick and mortar construction but rarely evaluates any sense of connectivity with the community.
Along the journey on the development of the W Hotel, the community pushed for innovations such as a Bike-Share facility in the W, a Car-Share facility in the W, all-walk phases (ped-scrambles) at the intersections surrounding the W, delivery services for local shoppers, all small elements in the grand scheme of things but enhancements that speak to the commitment to integrate with the local community. Those improvements may be coming, there may be better ones on the way, we just don't know about them.
What we do hear is abstract information that doesn't impact the individual on a personal level nor does it engage the individual in a relationship. Five acres, $500 million, 400 jobs, 400 rooms, 150 condos, all high-altitude stats that sound great but that fail to address real quality of life metrics.
How does one cross the street?
What does the street feel like from the pedestrian’s perspective? What's it like to walk down Argyle at night?
Can the occupants of the fortress see the people on the street or is it another "two worlds" concept?
Are there amenities for the Metro passengers or is this the clash of cultures? What's the impact of all of those billboards on the community?
How does the W circumvent the moratorium on billboards?
How can the community respect authority if the W manipulates the system?
5) The mandate of the CRA, to revitalize blighted communities using public money, seems to be lacking a clear standard of blight and a clear standard for performance.
For all of the zestful enthusiasm for employing large numbers of construction workers to build large fortresses, there seems to be little effort to pursue the softer and more difficult elements of blight, the human elements.
First, what is being done to reduce homelessness? There is no simpler definition of blight than to simply ask, "Are people living on the streets?" If so, get to work. But get them off the street, don't simply move them over two blocks to a different site!
Second, are the quotidian needs of the locals being met on the boulevard?
If the CRA keeps investing in facilities that don't connect with the communities, one might try to call it commerce, one might try to call it economic revitalization but the street comes alive when the locals have a reason to shop there.
The streets are safer and more attractive when people have a reason come to walk down the sidewalk and visit the bakery, grab a coffee, buy a book, pick up some flowers, visit with friends in the hospitable public space.
The projects must be evaluated on their contribution to the economic mix of the community and their ability to stir activity on the streets. "Bigger is better" is the mantra of cancer, not of development from the perspective of the individual human who must live and work and walk in the shadows of the fortresses that fail to engage the neighborhood on a personal level.
6) The final stage of development, one that the CRA and Legacy Partners is currently engaged in, is to negotiate the "Community Benefit." This is so odd. The project itself is supposed to be a community benefit so why is it getting shoehorned in as the red carpet is getting unrolled and the Chamber is preparing to cut the ribbon? Wouldn't "Community Benefit" be the foundation of the project, driving all actions, decisions, partnerships and results from that point on?
Apparently not.
The W Hollywood Hotel & Residences is in the process of committing to a "Community Benefit" that consists of an agreement to hiring local. Those local hires will be paid a living wage, obviously qualifying for accommodations at the W Residences and giving new meaning to "local.
As for the folks who are waiting to go "local" over at the Villas at Gower, no word yet on the groundbreaking, no word yet on housing options for the homeless, no word. Simply no word.
Hollywood, from the residents to the merchants to the tourists to the homeless, deserves better, and it's up to us to raise the standard.
(Stephen Box is a planning and transportation advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)
My name is Stephen Box. I ran for the City Council in March 2011 of Los Angeles, representing the 4th District.
Currently I work for the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment on Neighborhood Council Elections, communication and outreach endeavors, funding, advocacy, board retreats and campaign workshops.
Posts
