LA: City Where the Buck Never Stops

CityWatch, Feb 21, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 15

NO ONE IN LA EVER TAKES THE BLAME - Mayor Villaraigosa, the 11% Mayor who could balance the budget with his frequent flyer miles, has a long tradition of empowering a rotating cast of Deputy Mayors and General Managers in an effort to distance himself from his legacy of non-performance.

The City Council, completely impotent in its ability to direct city staff, resorts to motions ordering studies and reports as tools of coercion and then settles for the City of LA tradition of dividing the spoils by 15, regardless of need or relevance.

Commissioners, appointed by the Mayor, posture and pontificate, sometimes with acknowledged irrelevance and sometimes with significant political power but most often with Mayoral direction and benign neglect. Claims of significance are often challenged by reality.

General Managers, also appointed by the Mayor, find themselves caught between a term-limit restricted Mayor and a Civil Service hard place. Critics claim that they often serve as simple cannon fodder and Mayoral expeditors.

Navigating the treacherous press conference waters of LA’s City Hall operations are the “clients” who make the city run, the developers, builders, architects, engineers, transportation specialists, land use lawyers and consultants who advise the Mayor and his team.

Consider the latest dust-up at LA’s Department of Building & Safety (LADBS).

First, a local community member games the LADBS and initiates almost 200 Fence Height complaints against his neighbors, resulting in fees, fines, and penalties that then draw threats of garnishment, liens, and other legal action.

Then Council President Eric Garcetti intervenes and introduces a Council Motion that proposes solutions. He also sends a letter to LADBS General Manager Bud Ovrom “asking” him to hold all cases in abeyance while the issue is resolved in City Council.

Four months later, Bud Ovrom finds himself in hot water when Code Enforcement Bureau Chief Dr. Grace Harper, a 33 year veteran of LA’s civil service, simply rejects Garcetti’s request without notifying him, responding with an explanation, or even acknowledging receipt.

“It’s simply illegal for our department to hold code enforcement cases in one area in abeyance while still pursuing cases in the rest of the city,” Harper explained, “because that would result in charges of selective prosecution.”

While the irony of responding to charges that complaint driven code enforcement results in selective prosecution was lost on Harper, she defended her department’s actions by referring to their legal mandate to investigate all complaints but could not identify any statute or code that supports her position.

As for Ovrom, formerly the Deputy Mayor responsible for two of the city departments currently under Federal investigation, he finds himself navigating tough political waters. He has the Mayor on one side who simply needs to get to the end of his term, he has a City Councilman on the other side who needs to show the world that he is a credible candidate for Mayor, he has the Feds behind him investigating his department, and he has a retaining wall of civil service protected lifers in front of him that know he will soon be gone and it will be business as usual.

Off to the side are the “customers” who are the “business as usual” and they are known as the Development Industry Advisory Committee (DIAC). From Latham and Watkins to Gensler to California Home Builders to Englander, Knobe & Allen, these are the folks who meet regularly with Deputy Mayor Matt Karatz and GM Bud Ovrom to steer the ship.

Meanwhile, Councilman Eric Garcetti has tendered a City Council President-to-General Manager request that flatly gets ignored, he has trusted Council District staff who reassure him that all is well, and he has dismissed complaints from the community because he naively thinks the system is working.

It isn’t.

The Mayor’s office accepts no responsibility for the upside-down priorities that classify the developers and consultants as the “customers” while balancing the budget on the backs of the people who invest in homes and businesses in the community.

The Commissioners are hardly representative of the public, serving at the Mayor’s pleasure (and sometimes at his displeasure), typically handling consent agendas filled with fodder for press releases.

The City Council is tolerated by Departments that still divide the city into 15 regions, assigning a “handler” to each Council District to keep the politicos at bay by dispensing constituent treats equally. These buckets of asphalt and hot-spot support activities keep City Council incumbents seated and sated.

The General Manager is a political hire, serving at the Mayor’s pleasure. Sometimes the Mayor sends in a Deputy Manager to take over as GM to calm the troops in the wake of a disaster or Federal corruption investigation. Deputy Mayor Jaime de la Vega left City Hall and walked across the street to take over the LADOT and Deputy Mayor Bud Ovrom left City Hall to “handle” Villaraigosa’s attempt to “build our way out of this recession!”

Councilwoman Jan Perry looks at the revolving door of political impotence and complains that the problems stem from term limits. She points out that it is impossible to have a long term vision for the City of LA if all the work must be done in two mayoral terms.

Perry notes that term limits destroy any institutional memory and empowers lobbyists who have been around for a long time, elevating their insight and guidance in value.

Meanwhile, LA’s Code Enforcement is a General Fund activity, one that is subject to the Mayor’s cost recovery mandate, resulting in a predatory relationship with the people the City of LA is supposed to serve.

It is against LA’s municipal buck-passing landscape that the public must ask some tough questions:

Why is the LADBS rejecting requests from the public to participate on the LADBS and Planning advisory committees while Primestor Development, KPFF Engineering, California Home Builders, and RA Build Commercial LL enjoy unfettered access?

It’s because they see the developers as the client and the public as an obstacle.

Why won’t LA Deputy Mayor Matt Karatz and General Manager Bud Ovrom find the time to meet with the public, the residents of Los Angeles, the nearly four million people who are the reason for City Hall?

It’s because they know that there is no penalty for ignoring the public.

How does Eric Garcetti hope to position himself as a credible candidate for Mayor if he can’t get the GM of LADBS to acknowledge his communications, if he can’t get LADBS to accommodate his request for an abeyance, if he can’t get his staff to keep him informed of the reality on the streets, and if he can’t solve a simple Code Enforcement problem in his district.

He can’t, because he is unable to establish himself as LA’s “The Buck Stops Here!” candidate.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. You can also find him on Twitter and on Facebook.)

LA’s City Hall: The Great Pabulum and Placebo Dispenser

CityWatch, Feb 17, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 14

RETHINKING LA - LA’s leadership has a knack for dispensing with the restless residents who periodically take up pitchforks and torches, storming City Hall with demands for accountability in the delivery of city services.

The first step is to feign interest in the opinions of the public in the hopes that the noise will stop.
“Please, take my survey and tell me what you think!” says the Mayor as he engages in the annual charade of concern that precedes the charter mandated submission of the Mayor’s Proposed Budget for the City of LA.

”Please, fill out a comment card and sit for a few hours, then we will ignore you while you fumble through your two minutes of commentary!” say the members of various committees, commissions and advisory boards as they tolerate the public on their way to preordained conclusions and actions.

The City of LA is acutely sensitive to the legal minimum standard for public commentary as city leadership engages in the business of the people because it spends the bulk of its time focused on doing only what is required, not what would be effective or meaningful.

From Brown Act violations at the entrance of City Hall to First Amendment violations in Council Chambers, it is clear that City Hall tolerates public comment because it has to, not because it reflects the will and wishes of the people.

The second step is to feign interest in a movement in the hopes that the crowd will go away.

“Please, stay as long as you need to!” said City Council President Eric Garcetti to the Occupy LA protesters as Councilman Bill Rosendahl stood by his side.

Those who mistakenly assumed that the words of the City Council President had value were quickly disappointed when the Mayor ordered the LAPD to engage in a military style action that removed the protesters.

The cement barrier that currently surrounds City Hall is a glaring reminder that the verbal assurances of the City Council President aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

The third step is to nod somberly and to demand reports from city departments in the hope that the public will accept this as a victory.

The City Attorney’s ACE program keeps reappearing in City Council Committees, resembling that gopher game at the arcade where participants bang on the gopher’s head with a mallet as it pops up in different locations.

The ACE program has popped up all over town but the public has been able to bang on its head with the mallet of common sense, sending it back to the City Attorney’s office for more reports and adjustments and tweaks.

Eventually the public will swing and miss and the ACE program will fly through to City Council approval, just another rigged arcade game that promises much but delivers little.

Most city departments have a staff member who monitors City Hall and generates reports as ordered, knowing that this is all it takes to keep the elected officials at bay. Most of the reports never see the light of day, some get debated, and a few even turn into motions, which then get ignored.

The fourth step is to call for a moratorium while the subject is studied and debated and terms of office run out.

From medical marijuana to fast food to code harassment, LA is the Capital of Moratoriums, demonstrating that there is nothing as attractive as the opportunity to kick an issue down the road and to leave it for the next round of elected officials.

Those who work in the city departments that delivery city services are on to this game and they yawn as they ignore the moratoriums with complete confidence that there is no penalty or punishment. After all, three decades of civil service trumps the temporary leadership at City Hall.

Garcetti’s most recent promise of a moratorium on over height fence code enforcement in Hollywood was rejected by the upper management of Building and Safety, not with an official response, not with a reasoned discussion or a public hearing, but with the most stinging blow of all options, it was simply ignored.

This demonstrates the charade of City Hall, elected officials who must dance carefully to avoid allowing the public to discover that they are impotent, Emperors with no clothing, photo-op captains at the helm of a ship with no rudder.

The fifth step is to issue a resolution in support of a position, one that is suitable for framing, hoping that this will drive the pesky members of the public to Aaron Brothers where they can revel in the victory while the City of LA engages in business as usual.

Cyclists were empowered when the City Council endorsed the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights, issuing a resolution that called on City Planning and Transportation to embrace it as an element of the City’s Bike Plan.

Staffers simply refused, arguing that it was redundant and unnecessary and not within the City of LA’s purview. The penalty for noncompliance? There is none.

The final step is to simply run for a different office with a platform of reform, one that attacks the performance of the prior office-holders as if they aren’t the same gang of misfits.

City Controller Wendy Greuel is now auditing the same departments that she dealt with when she served as a City Councilwoman for District #2. Nothing has changed other than her perspective and degree of accountability.

As Chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committee, she had years to engage in oversight of the Department of Transportation yet it didn’t happen. Now, she’s racing to beat the feds in uncovering the indiscretions that took place on her watch.

Councilman Dennis Zine is busy campaigning for City Controller, a position that will allow him to ask the hard questions that he should be asking now in his position as Chair of the Audits and Governmental Efficiency Committee. Again, he is currently responsible for oversight of departments that are currently under federal investigation. How can he run on this record of failure?

Councilman Garcetti is running for Mayor on a platform of reform but how does he propose to change a city family that is currently ignoring his requests, motions, actions, and directives?

The people of LA have the right to demand a City that works, one that delivers city services as if it is the primary purpose of the City. It is incumbent on the current roster of elected officials to take charge of this city and to offer results, not more promises and distractions.

The veneer is wearing thin and it is becoming obvious to the public that City Hall is busy massaging the status quo by delivering memorandums-of-understanding and audits and resolutions, none of which mean anything other than to pay homage to the blue beads of past deceptions.

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

City Hall: All Motions, No Action

CityWatch, Feb 10, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 12

RETHINKING LA - Several years ago, LA’s City Council committed to developing a Citywide Transportation Strategic Plan that would include a vision with goals and an action plan that clearly communicated to the city family the initiatives, priority projects and programs that the City should undertake. This plan would include performance goals for the city departments and strategies for implementation.

An all-day City Council session that focused on Transportation took place, resulting in a flurry of motions that called for reports, lots of them, on ideas such as getting Transportation and Planning to work together and getting our funding strategies in order.

The final list of motions, 25 in all, contained some ambitious references to innovations in transportation engineering as well as acknowledgements that business as usual in LA had to change.

In the months that followed, the General Managers of Transportation and Planning appeared before the City Council to report on their progress, but they have since left the city, one under duress, the other in disgust.

As for the Citywide Transportation Strategic Plan, it has been four years since the City Council dusted its hands of any responsibility for actually embracing a vision, instead commissioning another journey [link] that resulted in a report that states the obvious and avoids a commitment to change.

Against a background of gridlocked traffic, busted streets and broken sidewalks, unhealthy air quality, and streets that are unsafe at any speed, Vision Los Angeles released a report last year that declared “Los Angeles County is one of the world’s most diverse and creative regions. Its transportation system should reflect this. We need a system that supports a vibrant and world-leading regional economy, clean air, minimal greenhouse gas emissions and access to safe, efficient and abundant transportation choices for all.”

This regional report from the Environmental Defense Fund and the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation came with 15 recommendations and serves as the substitute for the City of LA’s short-lived commitment to a Transportation Strategic Plan.

The Vision LA report is quite nicely written and it identifies air quality, transportation, land use, employment, and housing as related elements. This is hardly a controversial position but it is also not a vision document for the City of LA.

It is a statement of the obvious and an opportunity to dilute responsibility or any commitment to action.

Three of the current Mayoral candidates were at the all-day City Council session that focused on the development of LA’s Transportation Strategic Plan.

As they currently navigate the potholes on the campaign trail, as they adjust their schedules to avoid traffic congestion and delays, and as they address voters who pay housing and transportation costs that are among the highest in the nation, the question that must be answered is this:

Where is LA’s Transportation Strategic Plan and what have you done to change the way the City of LA secures transportation funding, repairs and maintains its streets, rebuilds its broken sidewalks, supports innovations in traffic controls, improves safety on the streets, and pursues innovations in transportation?

Eric Garcetti was the City Council President, Wendy Greuel was Chair of the Transportation Committee, and Jan Perry was Chair of the Energy and Environment Committee when the City Council committed to a strategic plan that would “enhance air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, facilitate transportation mobility and improve the economic and environmental foundation and future.”

Under Eric Garcetti’s watch, the promised Bike Hubs at two Transit Oriented Developments never materialized, the rooms still sit empty as evidence of undelivered promises. Developers continue to make and break local hire and local delivery service agreements with the community.

Under Wendy Greuel’s watch, communities struggle to make their streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists while the LADOT continues to fumble Safe Routes to School funding. The voters approved Measure R and the LADOT promptly went to work using bad math to inflate administrative costs and moving project funds to cover staffing costs. As the budget crisis continues, the LADOT continues to offer bonuses “because it’s permitted.”

Under Jan Perry’s watch, a funded PediCab proposal died for lack of support, not from the community or from those who volunteered to make it happen, but from the Council office. The opportunity to turn LA’s transportation crisis into an environmental issue slipped by, demonstrating a clear commitment to business as usual.

These are small examples of a larger problem.

The three mayoral candidates have avoided stepping on each other’s toes and they have sidestepped opportunities to rock the boat, calling into question their individual abilities to serve as a change agent capable of moving LA forward.

From addressing air quality on trucking corridors to reducing traffic congestion with regional valet services, the opportunity to change the current third world conditions of LA’s streets and sidewalks requires a commitment to the future.

LA’s Transportation Strategic Plan was that promise but it turned into a busy agenda of motions that did not translate into any actions.

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

Charlie Beck’s Anniversary is a Walk in the Park

CityWatch, Nov 25, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 64

RETHINKING LA - Chief of Police Charlie Beck celebrated his second anniversary as LA’s top cop by walking the beat, this time through the Bank of America Plaza where he chatted with Occupy LA protesters who had set up a camp on the bank’s property.

Beck occupies a unique position in the world of Occupy protests and is one of the only Police Chiefs in the country to establish a relationship with protesters that is based on respect and dignity.
Los Angeles stands alone in its deferential handling of the Occupy LA protest, demonstrating a commitment to the constitutional rights of the protesters that is in stark contrast to the violent behavior in cities such as Davis, Portland, Oakland, and New York City.

Beck’s walk through the Plaza, just like his walks through City Hall Park, demonstrated a commitment to community policing, one that treats the Occupy movement as a community that deserves a relationship.

Beck’s commitment to “rule of law” policing is the foundation of his law enforcement philosophy, a position that he emphasized when he was just one of several applicants vying for the Chief’s position that opened up when Bratton left town.

During the confirmation process, Beck declared “We don’t break the law to enforce the law.”

As Mayor Villaraigosa approaches the end of his second term in office and the field of candidates who want to serve as Mayor of Los Angeles fills up, it is important to note that Beck is rumored to be considering retirement in 2014, meaning the new Mayor will be selecting a new Chief.

That means the people of LA must speak now to help the Mayoral candidates frame their public safety platforms in the context of selecting a new Chief.

That also means the people of LA must speak now to help the candidates for Chief of Police know what kind of community policing strategies are best for LA.

The candidates for Mayor currently include City Council President Eric Garcetti, City Controller Wendy Greuel, Councilwoman Jan Perry, Austin Beutner, and Kevin James.

Now is the time to hold these candidates responsible for establishing a position on the constitutional rights of the Occupy LA protesters.

The likely candidates for Chief of Police include Assistant Chief Earl Paysinger, Deputy Chief Michel Moore, Deputy Chief Kirk Albanese, Deputy Chief Sandy Jo MacArthur, Deputy Chief Debra McCarthy, Deputy Chief Jose Perez, Deputy Chief Rick Jacobs, Deputy Chief Jorge Villegas, Commander Sharon Papa, and Commander John Sherman.

They’re all veterans with long resumes, many of them have been through Chief of Police selection process before, but this is a new day in LA and the next Chief will either move us forward in a commitment to community policing or return us to the “war room” mentality of days gone by.

Now is the time to send a message to those in charge of LAPD operations, including Paysinger and Jacobs, that the world is watching and that they are responsible for defending the Constitutional rights of those who petition their government.

Now is the time to send a message to those in charge of LA’s relationship with Occupy LA, including Perez and Sherman, that the people living in City Hall Park are Angelenos and that the actions witnessed in Davis and Oakland and on Wall Street are not acceptable in Los Angeles.

Now is the time to send a message to those in charge of Bureau operations, such as Villegas and McCarthy, that their record for building community relationships is their strength and that partnerships prevail where tactical gear fails.

It is important to note that Mayor Villaraigosa is under pressure and as the President of the US Conference of Mayors, he declared in his inaugural speech "Mayors, we can't afford to be timid." As he develops an exit strategy and works on his next appointment at the federal level, it is reasonable to expect him to feel pressure to toughen up his approach to Occupy LA.

This will put pressure on Beck and his command staff to act decisively, perhaps while Villaraigosa is out of town, leaving the responsibility on the shoulders of the City Council President.

The time to speak up is in advance of the impending action, not afterward in a replay of the Davis pepper spray assault that has left a trail of damaged careers in its wake.

The world is watching and the City of LA has an opportunity to demonstrate that it is a new city, one that embraces the rights of its residents and treats people with respect and dignity.

It won’t happen by accident. It will only happen if the people of LA speak up, establish priorities and a commitment to the rule of law, and communicate their expectations clearly to the Mayor, the City Council, and the LAPD.

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

Occupy LA: The Writing is On the Wall

CityWatch, Nov 15, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 91

RETHINKING LA - Occupy LA is slowly discovering that City Hall’s welcome mat has disappeared, that the Mayor’s gift of ponchos during the first rainstorm was more of a bon voyage gift than a welcome, and that the City Council’s endorsement was based on the hope that “This, too, shall pass.”

It has been more than six weeks since the Occupy LA movement took to the turf lawns of City Hall and during that time it has blossomed into a complete community that now includes a Library, a Theatre, a University, Health Care, Child Care, a Media Team, Peacekeepers, Governance, Entertainment, Public Works, Sanitation, and a host of other services, all accessible by visiting the Welcome Tent, the Occupy LA version of a concierge.

As Occupy movements around the country encounter resistance that has resulted in evictions and arrests, the Occupy LA protesters have enjoyed an environment of benign neglect from the occupants of City Hall.

The City of LA’s initial response the Occupy LA presence on the north lawn was awe-inspiring, one that revealed a kinder, more peaceful LAPD and allowed City Leadership to embrace a peaceful demonstration of First Amendment Rights.

Within days of the initial occupation, City Council President Eric Garcetti led a delegation of Councilmembers to the north lawn where they took turns addressing the crowd and where Garcetti wrapped the tour by telling Occupy LA “Stay as long as you need.”

The City Council jumped on the opportunity to demonstrate their passion for economic justice by issuing a proclamation in support of the Occupy LA’s peaceful expression of First Amendment Rights.

Since that initial “This is your City Hall!” blessing from LA’s leadership, the Occupy LA movement has settled into a round-the-clock occupation of the north and south lawns of City Hall in defiance of the ban on overnight camping in city parks.

There was a time when Los Angeles was a less hospitable free speech environment. In 1909, LA’s city fathers responded to the threat of class conflict with a ban on free speech from public streets that limited such activity to the Plaza.

Fans of free speech eventually found a home in Pershing Square where an informal outdoor debate society took root, initially referred to as the Pershing Square Philosophers in 1925 and by 1952 they were firmly established as the Pershing Square Country Club.

It was Mayor Sam Yorty that recognized the inherent danger in outdoor debate and in 1962 he declared that those who walk across the park "should not have their privacy invaded by men involved in loud harangues, by loiterers or by talkative crackpots."

Yorty’s solution was a park facelift that reduced the seating and resulted in a “non-loitering, walk-through park.”

It is against this rich backdrop of disdain for free speech that the recent actions of the LA County Health Department and the City of LA Department of Recreation and Parks (RAP) must be examined.

Occupy LA at one time operated a robust food service operation but that ended as the result of what some would call “code harassment” by health inspectors. Some have suggested that limiting access to food and water is one of the simplest and quietest methods to ending the occupation.

Jon Kirk Mukri, General Manager of Rec and Parks, recently sent the Mayor a letter detailing the impact of Occupy LA on LA’s City Hall Park.

The letter is obviously a response to a request and its content lays down the foundation for a legal eviction, one that honors the free speech rights of the participants while addressing legally sustainable issues that can justify a law enforcement action.

Mukri’s letter opens by rebranding the City Hall lawn as City Hall Park, a simple twist that is repeated and supported by the claim that it has been a “park” since 1927. At two acres in size, City Hall Park was apparently restored to its “historic condition” during City Hall’s earthquake retrofit.

Along came Occupy LA and protestors began camping on the lawn in violation of the city prohibition against camping in city parks.

In 1993 a court ruling addressed the legality of municipal prohibitions against nighttime loitering in city parks and held them to be constitutional, offering several causes that justified the bans. Mukri’s letter relies on them all.

Mukri establishes that the long ignored turf lawns of City Hall are actually “City Hall Park” and that firmly establishes the rights and obligations of the City of LA to protect those two acres of parkland.
The 1993 court case addresses the charge that anti-loitering laws are often unconstitutionally vague because they punish status rather than conduct.

Mukri’s letter builds on this legal distinction, addressing conduct and the results that will establish cause when the LAPD is brought in to evict the Occupy LA protesters, not because of what they say but because of what they do and its impact on City Hall Park.

The court held that a “park” is “a pleasure ground set aside for the recreation of the public, to promote its health and enjoyment.” The court went on to support the authority of the city to conserve those places “in their pristine state, and to promote public health, safety and welfare in the usage of those parks.”

Add to that the courts position that closing a park at night is a responsible action that limits wear and tear on park facilities and one can see, Mukri’s letter claims every bit of legal support for an impending action.

Mukri claims that City Hall Park soil has become compacted and extremely dry, that trees and other plants are suffering from a lack of water and nutrients, that the landscape areas are in decline.
Mukri addresses public safety and liability and wraps it up by putting a price tag on the restoration of City Hall Park, calling it a $120,000 project.

Over the weekend, Mayors from around the country initiated Occupy evictions.

Portland’s Mayor brought in 300 law enforcement officers from a dozen different departments to evict 1000 Occupy Portland protesters, an action that resulted in approximately 50 arrests.

Similar actions took place in St. Louis, Oakland, in Salt Lake City, and in Denver.

One can only imagine how tough it must be for LA’s Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa who also serves as the President of the Conference of Mayors. It was just a few months ago that he stood before Conference of Mayors and accepted his leadership role by declaring "Mayors, we can’t afford to be timid."

As Mayors around the country are acting aggressively to evict protesters and to confiscate mattresses, tents, and cooking equipment, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is slowly building a case and looking for an exit strategy that will return City Hall Park to its “historic condition.”

To think that it was not too long ago that City Council President and Mayoral aspirant Eric Garcetti stood on the north lawn and declared to the Occupy LA protesters “This is your City Hall.”

That was then, this is now.

The handwriting is on the wall.

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

Grass Roots Voices Put the Brakes on ACE, Parking Tickets, Fences

CityWatch, Oct 21, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 84

PEOPLE POWER - The trek to City Hall in order to make two minutes of public comment on an issue that appears to be a done-deal can be such an idealistic but unrewarding experience. But three different campaigns demonstrated that it really does make a difference.

● The City of LA’s Administrative Citation Enforcement program was well on its way to the City Council, fueled by such confidence that Councilman Koretz released the victory announcement in advance of the victory. He should have waited.

For two weeks in a row, opponents of the City Attorney’s proposed version of the ACE program spoke before the Budget & Finance Committee, raising enough concerns to prompt Councilman Rosendahl to declare "This ordinance is half-baked!"

The proposed ACE program ordinance was sent back to the City Attorney’s office for repairs, a process that is meant to reconcile the differences between the vision for code enforcement and the reality of the City Attorney’s proposal.

● The Department of Transportation ill-advised enforcement of LA’s murky apron-parking prohibition prompted a City Watch article that challenged the City Attorney’s motives and another article that challenged the legality of the City’s newfound enthusiasm for aprons.

Community leaders built websites such as StopLADOT and Palisades Parking Patrol, organized citywide pickets, and petitioned their government in the form of public comment.

It took a couple of motions, the first one completely ineffective and the second one more convincing, before the City Attorney issued a statement acknowledging merits of the public argument:

“The Los Angeles City Council approved a motion on October 12, 2011, suspending enforcement of LAMC Section 80.53. While Section 80.53 is suspended, an owner or lessee may park on the apron as long as no portion of the vehicle touches a sidewalk or projects into the street in violation of California Vehicle Code Sections 22500(e) and (f), respectively. Enforcement of California Vehicle Section 22500, in its entirety, will remain in full force and effect. In addition, other sections of the Los Angeles Municipal Code regulating "parkways" shall also remain in full force and effect.”

● The third round of public comments to result in a victory came from the residents of East Hollywood who were in search of relief from the “code enforcement zealots” responsible for 177 over-in-height fence citations that resulted in fees, fines, and penalties that then resulted in liens, garnishments, and legal actions.

The journey to City Hall took four months and began with a dozen weekly neighborhood walking tours [link] to engage the community, the local LAPD Captains, the businesses, and community groups. The East Hollywood Street Beat mobilized on the streets and then went indoors, transitioning into the LA City Works civic engagement training that prepared them for their public comments at City Hall.

The East Hollywood residents spoke out at the Budget & Finance Committee [link] in opposition to the proposed ACE program and then returned to City Hall to protest the Building & Safety citations that they claim “criminalize the residents while ignoring the
criminals!”

City Council President Eric Garcetti stepped out of the City Council proceedings, passing the gavel to Councilman Zine, and listening to the stakeholders’ stories of the complaint driven system of code enforcement that has resulted in uneven application of the law and selective prosecution of code violations.

Garcetti brought in David Lara from Building & Safety and Jane Usher from the City Attorney’s office and set three solutions in play.

1) A moratorium on over-in-height fence and front yard use code violation enforcement and prosecution.

2) A moratorium on the collection of fees, fines, and penalties as well as a moratorium on liens, garnishments, and legal actions for non-compliance.

3) The creation of LA’s first Fence Height District.

In each of these three examples, the work is far from done, but it’s much farther along than it would have been if the public had remained silent.

These three campaigns, from the opponents of ACE to those cited for Apron Parking to the victims of zealous Building & Safety citations, all demonstrate that it pays to speak up and to partner in solutions that improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods.

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

Speak Up! It Pays!

CityWatch, Oct 18, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 83

PEOPLE POWER - The trek to City Hall in order to make two minutes of public comment on an issue that appears to be a done-deal can be such an idealistic but unrewarding experience. But three different campaigns demonstrated that it really does make a difference.

● The City of LA’s Administrative Citation Enforcement program was well on its way to the City Council, fueled by such confidence that Councilman Koretz released the victory announcement in advance of the victory. He should have waited.

For two weeks in a row, opponents of the City Attorney’s proposed version of the ACE program spoke before the Budget & Finance Committee, raising enough concerns to prompt Councilman Rosendahl to declare "This ordinance is half-baked!"

The proposed ACE program ordinance was sent back to the City Attorney’s office for repairs, a process that is meant to reconcile the differences between the vision for code enforcement and the reality of the City Attorney’s proposal.

● The Department of Transportation ill-advised enforcement of LA’s murky apron-parking prohibition prompted a City Watch article that challenged the City Attorney’s motives and another article that challenged the legality of the City’s newfound enthusiasm for aprons. [link]

Community leaders built websites such as StopLADOT and Palisades Parking Patrol, organized citywide pickets, and petitioned their government in the form of public comment.

It took a couple of motions, the first one completely ineffective and the second one more convincing, before the City Attorney issued a statement acknowledging merits of the public argument:

“The Los Angeles City Council approved a motion on October 12, 2011, suspending enforcement of LAMC Section 80.53. While Section 80.53 is suspended, an owner or lessee may park on the apron as long as no portion of the vehicle touches a sidewalk or projects into the street in violation of California Vehicle Code Sections 22500(e) and (f), respectively. Enforcement of California Vehicle Section 22500, in its entirety, will remain in full force and effect. In addition, other sections of the Los Angeles Municipal Code regulating "parkways" shall also remain in full force and effect.”

● The third round of public comments to result in a victory came from the residents of East Hollywood who were in search of relief from the “code enforcement zealots” responsible for 177 over-in-height fence citations that resulted in fees, fines, and penalties that then resulted in liens, garnishments, and legal actions.

The journey to City Hall took four months and began with a dozen weekly neighborhood walking tours to engage the community, the local LAPD Captains, the businesses, and community groups. The East Hollywood Street Beat mobilized on the streets and then went indoors, transitioning into the LA City Works civic engagement training that prepared them for their public comments at City Hall.

The East Hollywood residents spoke out at the Budget & Finance Committee in opposition to the proposed ACE program and then returned to City Hall to protest the Building & Safety citations that they claim “criminalize the residents while ignoring the criminals!”

City Council President Eric Garcetti stepped out of the City Council proceedings, passing the gavel to Councilman Zine, and listening to the stakeholders’ stories of the complaint driven system of code enforcement that has resulted in uneven application of the law and selective prosecution of code violations.

Garcetti brought in David Lara from Building & Safety and Jane Usher from the City Attorney’s office and set three solutions in play.

1) A moratorium on over-in-height fence and front yard use code violation enforcement and prosecution.

2) A moratorium on the collection of fees, fines, and penalties as well as a moratorium on liens, garnishments, and legal actions for non-compliance.

3) The creation of LA’s first Fence Height District.

In each of these three examples, the work is far from done, but it’s much farther along than it would have been if the public had remained silent.

These three campaigns, from the opponents of ACE to those cited for Apron Parking to the victims of zealous Building & Safety citations, all demonstrate that it pays to speak up and to partner in solutions that improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods.

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

The Los Angeles City Hall of Hypocrites

CityWatch, Oct 11, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 81

RETHINKING LA - LA’s City Council deserves an award for its ability to conduct its business with a straight face, on the one hand feigning sincerity as it embraces the Occupy LA movement while simultaneously imposing property liens on Angelenos in actions that can’t be explained, let alone justified.

Last Tuesday, speakers from the Occupy LA movement appeared in City Council chambers and spoke passionately about the issues that have prompted people across the country to speak up about corporate personhood, the collapsing economy, home foreclosures, economic inequity, social injustice, restricted access to healthcare and education, and a government that no longer represents the people.

City Councilmembers responded enthusiastically. Zine declared “The City Council is a non-profit organization.” Rosendahl bubbled “This is the American Autumn.” Reyes echoed “I want to join the choir.” Alarcon patted the city on the back saying “I want to commend the LAPD for working with us to ensure safety, so the message is the message, not about clashes.”

The City Council went on to issue a motion that ran for three pages, touching on the many issues that have prompted Angelenos to grab a piece of the Occupy LA movement, then concluding with an affirmation of Occupy LA’s 1st Amendment rights.

Kum. Ba. Yah!

Much was made of the Councilmembers who ventured from the Council Chambers and onto City Hall’s north lawn, home of the Occupy LA campsite that spends days on the grass and nights on the cement in an obedient nod to LA’s municipal code that allows camping, just not comfortable camping.

Rosendahl and Garcetti not only toured, they requested permission to speak. “Stay as long as you need," Garcetti told them. "We’re here to support you.” He then shouted “This is your City Hall!” and the crowd responded "This is our City Hall!"

Missing from the highlights of that day is the series of lien actions and variance requests that came before the City Council, all of which clearly demonstrated that in Los Angeles, it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

A resident of Jan Perry’s district appeared before the City Council to point out that he inherited a property that came with a burned out building, a fence, and a City of LA lien that prevented him from moving forward to improve the property, to sell the property, to do anything other than to allow the blight to continue.

Does it take a City Council appearance to get the attention of the Council office? Does it take the City Council office to get the attention of Building & Safety? Does it require a special administrative hearing to pursue fair and effective enforcement of the city’s codes and standards by Building & Safety?

Apparently, yes. Councilwoman Perry quickly asked for a continuance and promised to look at the matter.

Ronald & Florence Miller then took to the podium in response to citations for excessive vegetation on their property. After their first notice, they hired gardeners to attend to the “excessive” vegetation. They then called for another inspection, which the city performed but when pressed, the inspector was unable to define “excessive” nor was he able to rule on the issue of compliance.

The property owners persisted but got no response from Building & Safety. They claim to have heard nothing until they received a notice of a debt in collections from a private party. They protested the collections and the debt, putting the issue back into the hands of the City of LA which again failed to respond, until it placed a lien on the Miller property.

Ronald Miller was cut off as his two minutes expired. He paused and his wife yielded her time so that he could continue speaking. Councilman Zine refused to allow Florencia to yield her time, requiring her to continue where her husband left off.

Zine may have regretted his rigidity when Florencia went on to claim violations of the right to due process, the right to face one’s accuser, the right to participate in an appeal process, and the right to be free of malicious prosecution, the uneven application of the law, and the discriminatory impact of selective prosecution.

Most of all, the entire City Council may have regretted Zine’s heavy-handedness when Florencia paused and changed topics, addressing the Council and calling them out on their inability to pay attention. “I’ve noticed that when people are speaking here, everybody is doing something else. It feels extremely bad to come here to speak to you and to feel ignored,” said Florencia, “I guess that is how the legal process works.”

Councilmember Ed Reyes stood to defend the behavior of the multi-tasking Councilmembers, explaining “I’m doing two or three things at the same time, it pains me to think that what you have to say has no value, it does. I am listening. The trip here was worth it.”

The Council then immediately contradicted Councilman Reyes by voting unanimously to support the Department of Building & Safety’s recommendation of a lien to be placed on the property as a result of the “excessive” vegetation that was removed in 2009.

The hypocritical nature of the City Council’s strict adherence to municipal policy, municipal code, and administrative process was immediately demonstrated as Councilmember Koretz called the next item on the agenda “special” and then bent over backward to offer a stakeholder a “categorical exemption” to the law and to land use restrictions. In an effort to get around the requirement for a zone change, Koretz supported a variance request in a replay of a Council action that was recently reversed by the Court of Appeals which held that the City Council simply does not have the authority.

Recent legal rulings be damned, Koretz moved to support the variance request of a favored stakeholder who can claim no legal foundation for the R-1 conversion of a rec room into an illegal apartment, resulting in a special consideration that contradicts the ruling of the zoning administrator.

The Council then “listened” to legal objections, to protests from the community, to the presentation of letters and a petition in opposition to the variance, and then they voted unanimously to support the variance.

LA’s City Council goes about its business with a straight face, at times throwing its hands in the air and claiming to be limited by the law, while at other times, throwing the law in the air and claiming unlimited authority to apply mercy to insiders and punishment to those on the fringe.

As LA’s City Council prepares to continue with the charade of embracing the ideals of Occupy LA, it is important that the Councilmembers accept the fact that the City Council and its uneven application of the law, its selective enforcement of the law, and its failure to end the “divisive economic and social realities” is what makes the LA City Council the subject of the Occupy LA protest, not its partner.

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

If Occupy LA Occupied City Hall

CityWatch, Oct 7, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 80

RETHINKING LA - The Occupy Wall Street movement has gone viral, spreading across the country as people of all walks gather in their respective cities to protest corporate greed, social inequity, corporate personhood, and a host of other issues that reflect the spectrum of discontent with the status quo.

Occupy LA is approaching the end of its first week on the north lawn of LA’s City Hall and in that short time they have incurred the wrath of the most deadly of movement enemies, benign neglect.

Protesters in New York have been pepper sprayed, arrested, and restricted by ordinance from using amplified sound while Occupy LA has competed with the trial of Michael Jackson’s doctor for media coverage.

Protesters in Seattle have braved the chilly weather without tents, shivering in the cold rain as the police confiscated their supplies and arrested those who resisted the ban on blankets, sleeping bags, and “lounging” behavior.

Protesters in Los Angeles have been quietly accommodated by law enforcement, cheerily visited by City Hall staff, welcomed into Council Chambers, and gifted with a City Council Resolution of Passive Support that memorializes the many issues that prompt Occupy LA to exert their 1st Amendment rights.

City Council President Garcetti was joined by Councilmembers Alarcon and Rosendahl in a brief tour of the Occupy LA camp, an expedition that was prompted by earlier public comments in City Council pointing out the contrast between the theoretical debate on the council floor and the reality on the streets.

To their credit, they came, they saw, and they postured.

(Note: The LA Council will consider a Resolution of Support for Occupy LA on Tuesday, authored by Alarcon and Rosendahl.)

As for the residual impact on Occupy LA, they still move their tents from the lawn to the sidewalk each night in deference to the Los Angeles Municipal Code restriction on camping in city parks, a classification that applies to the lawns surrounding City Hall.

LA’s City Council is missing out on a big opportunity by not embracing Occupy LA and bringing them inside, after all, there is so much City Hall could learn from the movement. Typically, the twin enemies of a protest are limited resources and resistance, challenges that either crush a movement or refine it into an effective organization.

City Hall could take a lesson from Occupy LA in the following areas:

Media - Occupy LA established a Media tent on the north lawn and the events are livestreamed via internet, allowing viewers to interact at all hours with each other and with members of Occupy LA.

The ongoing narrative and dialogue is complemented by the full spectrum of social media and dissemination of content is comprehensive. Contrast this with City Hall’s continued reliance on physical posting of notices in a city of 485 square miles and the gap between what Occupy LA has done in less than a week and what City Hall fumbles on a regular basis.

Education - Within days, Occupy LA had structured classes on the issues so that participants could move beyond experiences and slogans and into the substance of the agenda, whether economic, legal, environmental, social, or strategic. The open air classrooms offer proponents the opportunity to clarify their message and audience members an opportunity to engage in dialogue. Contrast this with City Hall and the ongoing confusion that reigns supreme on issues that include the budget, water & power, transportation, infrastructure, code enforcement, public safety, and the delivery of city services.

Communication - New York authorities have enforced a ban on amplified sound under threat of 30 day jail terms so the Occupy Wall Street protesters rose to the challenge by employing the human microphone. A speaker yells “mic check” and the crowd repeats the words, the speaker continues and the crowd repeats the words, resulting in a public address system that is creative, participatory, effective, and triumphant, a small victory that edifies as well as ensures an attentive audience.

Contrast this with City Hall and the degrading experience of public comment before an inattentive City Council that endures commentary as a necessary evil.

Healthcare - It’s not an afterthought or a response to a crisis, it’s a basic human need. Occupy LA has it covered and that includes the range of elements that contribute to health including shelter from the elements, sanitation and bathroom facilities, wash stations, good nutrition, and social needs.

Occupy LA has it all while the City of LA still acts as if it deserves a commendation from the United Nations for placing portable toilets on the streets and allowing homeless to sleep on sidewalks. (but not in cars, that’s prohibited by LAMC 85.02)

Public Participation - At Occupy LA, if you show up, you’re a member. If you speak up, you will be heard. The General Assembly meets every evening and the proceedings are broadcast via internet, allowing for commentary from the viewing audience.

Contrast this with the City Council’s ongoing debate over neighborhood councils, the definition of a stakeholder, the rules and regulations for participation, ethics training, and vetting and it’s evident, Occupy LA could teach City Hall a thing or two about engaging the public, treating them with respect, and creating a rewarding experience.

Funding - Within hours of establishing an online presence, Occupy LA had created a funding strategy that included several mechanisms for participation, from establishing a mailing address so that supplies could be shipped to a downtown location, to runners who would pick up donations, to online contributions of money, to organized and scheduled deliveries that ensure consistent support.

Contrast that with the City of LA’s inability to process permit fees by phone or online or in person unless you’re willing to trek downtown on a Friday and wait in line. Hands down, Occupy LA could teach City Hall a thing or two about how to handle money.

Food - Occupy LA addresses the problem of limited resources by seeking out solutions that have more than one application. Even the delivery of pizza goes beyond simple immediate sustenance and provides diners with more cardboard for signage. Creating signs turns into an art project for kids who are learning silkscreening, all of which turns the lawn into gallery space.

Contrast this with City Hall’s contempt for the public as they engage in marathon sessions with no concern for the public’s need for sustenance, all as the Council enjoys catered lunches in Council Chambers while the public sits under “no food or beverage” signs.

Security - Occupy LA is aware of the potential for disorder and it responds to the opportunity by creating order that prevents problems, not by displaying force but by giving respect, lots of respect. City Hall keeps the front doors locked and does more to create a “fortress mentality” than the State Capitol, clearly articulating that the people of LA are not to be trusted. Occupy LA has strategies for diffusing tension and avoiding disorder, without resorting to force. The techniques work and the LAPD is responding with similar strategies of non-resistance.

Urban Planning - The Occupy LA microcosm demonstrates a sensitivity to the many elements of a “whole community” including great public space for gathering, protected areas for childcare, pockets for the different elements of the human experience including arts and culture, political dialogue, education, supplies, foodservice, active zones and passive zones, all of which communicate respect for the human experience. Contrast this with the cavalier approach of City Hall where the people of LA are treated as a burden that has the audacity to demand facilities that work, a budget that is balanced, and the delivery of city services.

Occupy LA has accomplished a great deal in less than a week, demonstrating that they have admirable organizational skills and a knack for herding cats that is the essence of a successful movement.

At the same time, they have been criticized for not having a cohesive platform as if the ability to raise an alarm is limited to those who also posses the solution. This is like requiring all medical patients to know the cure before they can complain of the symptom or that all malpractice suits be limited to victims who have medical degrees. Occupy LA is on the right track, they’ve raised the alarm, and the murmur of dissatisfaction is gathering momentum.

Another criticism leveled at Occupy LA is that the numbers aren’t inspiring, as if there is a threshold for validity that comes with participation. The only problem with this is that it is not historical, all movements start off in bits and pieces, some fail and some gather steam, but they all start somewhere.

In hindsight, there will be great debate over the tipping point, the moment at which a complaint resonated and turned into a demand, the place at which a simple campsite turned into the beginning of a journey, the point at which people looked to the left and to the right and realized that there was significant common ground and it was littered with broken promises and squandered potential.

The most significant criticism comes from the pragmatists on the sidelines who contend that Occupy LA will fail because the participants haven’t suffered enough and haven’t encountered significant oppression.

Apparently, the naysayers feel that righteous indignation is insufficient fuel for a call to action, a position that does more to justify their lack of action than to condemn Occupy LA, leaving them on the sidelines as part of the problem, not the solution.

To contend that Occupy LA deserves a place in City Hall simply because they get sleeping bags shipped overnight, pizza delivered regularly, and keep the toilet paper stocked is overly-simplistic. Running the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Country in the world takes much, much more. It takes leadership and a willingness to stand up.

That’s where Occupy LA comes through, with a clear voice of contempt for the status quo, demonstrating the individual leadership that is coalescing into collective leadership, willing to stand up and scream

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

Can Wendy Greuel Run on Her Record?

CityWatch, Aug 16, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 65

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - LANCC defends DWP Reform funding

CityWatch, Nov 9, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 89

The Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition (LANCC) entered the DWP Reform fray, voting unanimously to condemn last week's revision to the City Council’s proposed ballot measure, calling anything short of a fixed funding commitment "a poison pill" that will ensure failure.

At issue are the City Council’s parry-reposte moves that both advance a plan for governance and oversight of LA’s Department of Water and Power while pulling the funding rug out from underneath the yet-unformed Office of Public Accountability.

The Perry/Parks motion of last week would "delete the provision that requires the Office of Public Accountability (OPA) to be set at a minimum or one-tenth-of-one-percent of annual LADWP revenues, and instead require the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), in consultation with the LADWP and other departments necessary, to prepare the budget for the OPA...submitting it to the City Council for approval."

Chuck Ray, Vice-Chair of the Neighborhood Councils DWP Oversight Committee and a member of the DWP’s Ratepayer Advocate Advisory Panel, says "the last minute motion removes the fixed amount of funding...and substitutes the judgment of the CAO, a political appointee. Structured this way, the City Council is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." Ray pointed out that the budget debate comes down to Independent Oversight vs. Political Oversight.

The LADWP is the largest municipal utility in the United States but it operates without the independent oversight that is common in both the public and private sector. Typically, utilities answer to agencies and regulatory powers that vary in structure but include stakeholders, stockholders, bondholders, ratepayers, and a variety of commissions, boards, committees, and authorities.

Critics contend that the LADWP and its politically appointed Commission operate independently and without oversight, resulting in a consolidation of power that works to advance the interests of the DWP at the expense of the ratepayers in the City of LA.

Efforts to advance LADWP governance and oversight have wide support from both the neighborhood council advocates and city hall insiders.

Jack Humphreville, President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and the Ratepayer Advocate for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council, has long advocated for "a well funded, empowered and truly independent RPA to oversee the operations, finances, and management of DWP on a timely and continuous basis."

Councilman Greig Smith called for an "Inspector General position to independently review and report on the operations, administrative and management actions of the Department of Water."

Council President Eric Garcetti joined in the call for DWP oversight and noted that the City of LA has spent over $1.5 million on consultants in the last year, simply investigating, researching and advising the City Council on specific LADWP issues, but with no comprehensive oversight role.

DWP Interim General Manager Austin Beutner acknowledges the need for oversight but says a Charter Amendment is unnecessary, arguing that "a rate informer, office of public accountability or whatever the vernacular used could actually be formed by actions of the department, together with this council."

City Council is wrapping a year-long discussion of LADWP reform, including Councilwoman Jan Perry's latest motion giving budget authority to the CAO, and moving forward with putting the creation of an Office of Public Accountability on the March 2011 ballot.

Concurrently, a City Hall discussion is taking place on the structure of the LADWP, including opportunities for the public to participate in the governance and oversight of the LADWP Commission and the General Manager.

Meanwhile, over on Hope Street, the LADWP General Manager and Commission are engaged in the development of a non-profit corporation that will operate under contract with the City of Los Angeles, offering oversight and governance, with a Board of Directors that has three business seats, three neighborhood council seats, one labor seat, one non-profit seat, and one environmental seat.

Humphreville compares the two independent RPA proposals by saying "There's no comparison. Anything short of a Charter Amendment with guaranteed funding levels for the RPA's office is a false start with built-in vulnerability."

The next step for the City Council sponsored Charter Amendment is the fine-tuning of the current document in a race to the November 17th deadline, at which point the pro and con arguments will be written.

The next step for the City Council sponsored revisions to the LADWP Commission structure is a vote at the Monday 8th joint meeting of the Rules & Elections committee and the Energy & Environment committee, then on to the City Council for a final recommendation. (the committee meeting may qualify as a full City Council meeting if enough members show up)

The next step for the LADWP sponsored "Corporation for the Office of the Ratepayers Advocate" is a presentation of the proposed by-laws, the model contract, and the names of the proposed directors at the December 7th meeting of the LADWP Commission.

The current board nominees are: Stuart Waldman and Carol Shatz - business seats, Kirsten Eberhard - environmental seat, Jack Humphreville, Chuck Ray, and Tony Wilkinson - neighborhood council seats. There are no current nominees for the open business, labor and non-profit seats.

(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.)

CityWatchLA - If Apple Computer’s Steve Jobs Ran City Hall, What Would He Do?

CityWatch, Aug 31, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 69

Councilmembers Garcetti and Krekorian have both utilized iPhone Apps as tools for connecting their constituents with City Hall, earning accolades for their innovation and vision. This small step begs the question, what would happen if LA simply rebooted City Hall, embracing the way of the iPhone’s creator … Apple Computers, Inc … and installing the latest iGovernment Operating System? More significantly, what would happen if Los Angeles embraced the ideals and commitments of Apple?

1) LA would have a long-term vision in place. Progress would be measured based on the development and implementation of stepping stones that are all part of building the future into LA's platform.

LA's current vision, if it can be called a vision, consists of reacting to a long series of crises with short term fixes that merely stave off the inevitable and allow City Hall to engage in prolonged triage.

Apple, by comparison, went from a 1997 low that saw Fortune Magazine label it "Silicon Valley's paragon of dysfunctional management" to its recent high where it became the largest company in the tech universe, passing Microsoft in market capitalization. Apple CEO Steve Jobs did it by focusing on the Apple Core and challenging his team to a high standard. "Be a yardstick of quality. Some people aren't used to an environment where excellence is expected."

2) LA would have a plan for moving forward. Performance would be evaluated based on the implementation of progressive solutions that build on prior successful innovations.

LA's current plan is reactive and compartmentalized to the point of absurdity. City Departments operate independently and redundantly, competing internally for resources, and operating out of a commitment to self-preservation.

Apple, in contrast, is led by a CEO who is focused on the user experience and on keeping the company on track. Jobs defines his role, saying "The people who are doing the work are the moving force behind the Macintosh. My job is to create a space for them, to clear out the rest of the organization and keep it at bay."

This focus has led to the release of a series of platforms (Mac OS X, iPod, iPhone OS, iTunes, retail, App Store, etc) that, in hindsight, demonstrate a vision and a plan for delivering products that exceed the customers’ expectations, setting industry standards along the way, and building on prior successes to fuel the next innovation.

3) LA would embrace simplicity. City Hall redundancies would be eliminated and LA's CEO would focus on the simple delivery of prioritized city services and the satisfaction of the simple common goals of the people of Los Angeles.

LA's current bureaucratic maze defies navigation and requires the assistance of gatekeepers, handlers, fixers, navigators, consultants and facilitators. As for the simple folks of LA who attempt to reach out to City Hall, literally every door leads to the Department of "No!"

Apple, on the other hand, sets a standard for simplicity and then again for exceeding demands. Mac faithful have grumbled over the years as features and operating systems have disappeared. But the loss of the floppy disk, the threat to the optical drive, and the anticipated demise of the mouse are all quickly forgotten because of the simple brilliance of the replacement.

Jobs explains his commitment to innovation by quoting Henry Ford who said "If I'd have asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, "A faster horse!'"

Apple's CEO sees his role as a filter. Jobs keeps his finger on the DELETE key but when he says "Yes!" he means it and it resonates throughout the company, transforming the market and eventually the industry. He starts with the customer's experience as the foundation, using their requests as the inspiration for exceeding their imagination and vision.

Jobs explains "You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new." He concludes by explaining his position, "Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower."

4) LA would have Genius Bars at City Hall and in every Council District! City Hall would move beyond the basic commitments of Public Safety, Public Health, Public Works, Public Education, Public Service and Public Benefit, embracing Public Trust as the glue that holds LA together as a Great City.

LA's current Operating System seems to be something that happens in spite of the people, not because of the people. That needs to change.

Ten years ago, Apple implemented a retail strategy that set out to imitate the customer service standard found at a hotel concierge desk. This led to the creation of the Genius Bar, something referred to as the "heart and soul" of every Apple Store.

Apple Geniuses will look at Apple products for free, regardless of where they were purchased, operating with authority to waive any repair fees that might apply, all in a commitment to forging a relationship that transcends the hardware/software issue at hand.

Sydney is a city of five million people and they have a concierge on the first floor of City Hall. I think Los Angeles could go one better and staff City Hall with a Genius Bar, staffed with people who are committed to creating a City that Works!

(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.)

Trader Joe’s sets a TOD Standard - Bike Parking!

It’s been a little more than three weeks since Enci sent the tweet heralding the arrival of Trader Joe’s in Hollywood but lamenting the fact that it would be sans Bike Racks. The Tweeps responded, the news spread through the Facebook crowd, and Trader Joe’s started getting phone calls. Lots of them.

It would seem that convenient, safe, and effective Bike Parking would be the norm, not the exception but such was not the case and so the battle unfolded, with Enci calling for a boycott and Trader Joe’s playing dumb.

Trader Joe’s, like any large company, organization, bureaucracy, has mad skills in the fine art of the “Anyone but me!” line of defense when dealing with the public, the customer, the stakeholder, the reason for their existence. They went to work.

They started by blaming their failure to provide Bike Racks on the City of LA, claiming that it required a permit and that it would be completely inappropriate to put bike racks on Vine, in front of the building. I pointed out that it was not true.

They then shifted the responsibility to their Landlord, Legacy Partners, saying that it was the developers responsibility to put in Bike Racks, not theirs. I again pointed out that it was not true.

I spoke to Legacy Partners, attempting to remove any obstacles, and was informed that Bike Racks on the street would be a problem for aesthetic reasons. I pointed out that the building would look a lot nicer if it was surrounded by people, bikes, signs of life! Legacy then changed tack, claiming that their Development Agreement with the Metro and the CRA forbid Bike Racks. I pointed out that it was not true.

I spoke to the Metro, they had no prohibition against Bike Racks and unfortunately, they also had no requirement in the Development Agreement for Bike Racks.

I spoke to the CRA, they had no prohibition against Bike Racks and, again unfortunately, they had no requirement in the Development Agreement for Bike Racks.

I spoke to LA’s City Council President Eric Garcetti, pointing out that LA’s largest Transit Oriented Development opened with no Bike Racks, all in violation of LAMC 12.21-A16. He smiled and said that they had a great plan for centralized bike parking somewhere else on the W Hollywood’s four and half acre lot. I pointed out that it was not true.

Somehow LA’s largest Transit Oriented Development made it all the way to the finish line with no Bike Parking standard in place for tenants, even though the City of LA requires it.

Somehow the Metro, the CRA, the City of LA, Gatehouse Capital and Legacy Partners are able to put Federal, State, County, City money to work developing the neighborhood, yet do it with complete contempt for the people who don’t arrive in a motor vehicle.

It’s been two weeks since the TJ’s in Hollywood opened, it’s been two days since Director of Construction installed the Bike Racks. They look great and they are a victory for a few reasons.

*We’ve got Bike Racks and can lift the boycott! Now we can shop at Trader Joe’s!

*We’ve established a Bike Parking standard for the Trader Joe’s Corporation! No Wave or Wheelbender Bike Racks, simple inverted-U racks that are properly installed and spaced and protected and accessible and visible and convenient and effective. This is the Bike Rack Standard for Trader Joe’s.

*We’ve established a Bike Parking standard for the Metro and for the CRA. Transit Oriented Development must have a Bike Parking standard for the project as a whole and for the tenants. Centralized Bike Parking is a non-starter, a figment of Garcetti’s imagination, implausible, unacceptable, a simple violation of the “convenient and practical” rule that governs design.

*We’ve established a Bike Parking standard for the neighborhood.

This is not the first time Enci has tangled with the City or with Property Managers over Bike Parking. There was the City National Plaza and their threat to impound bikes, there was the Museum Square incident that saw her bike booted and there was the successful Bike Rack campaign at LAPD Headquarters.

From the Los Angeles Municipal Code: (LAMC 12.21-A. 16)

16. Bicycle Parking and Shower Facilities. (Added by Ord. No. 167,409, Eff. 12/19/91.) Off-street parking spaces for bicycles and facilities for employee showers and lockers shall be provided as follows:

(a) In the C and M zones, for any building, portion thereof or addition thereto used for non-residential purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet, bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of two percent of the number of automobile parking spaces required by this section for such non-residential uses; provided, however, that at least one bicycle parking space shall be provided for any such building having a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet of non-residential use. If the calculation of the number of required spaces under this paragraph results in a number including a fraction, the next highest whole number shall be the number of spaces required.

(b) The bicycle parking space requirements in Paragraph (a) shall also apply to any building, regardless of zone, owned by the City of Los Angeles and used by the City for government purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet.

(c) All bicycle parking spaces required by this Subdivision shall include a stationary parking device which adequately supports the bicycle. In addition, at least half of the bicycle parking spaces shall include a stationary parking device which securely locks the bicycle without the use of a user-supplied cable or chain. Devices which hold the bicycle upright by wheel contact must hold at least 180 degrees of wheel arc.

(d) Each bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of two feet in width and six feet in length and shall have a minimum of six feet of overhead clearance.

(e) Bicycle parking spaces shall be located no farther than the distance from a main entrance of the building to the nearest off-street automobile parking space.

(f) Bicycle parking spaces shall be separated from automobile parking spaces or aisles by a wall, fence, or curb or by at least five feet of open space marked to prohibit parking.

(g) Aisles providing access to bicycle parking spaces shall be at least five feet in width.

(h) Signage which is clearly legible upon approach to every automobile entrance to the parking facility shall be displayed indicating the availability and location of bicycle parking.

(i) Showers and lockers shall be provided as required by Section 91.6307 of this Code. (Amended by Ord. No. 177,103, Eff. 12/18/05.)