Beutner defends his record in City Hall...Efficiency, Accountability, Connectivity

CityWatch, Feb 28, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 17

LA MAYOR'S RACE 2013 - Austin Beutner arrived fashionably late for his AIA/LA Mayoral Candidate Forum, a conversation moderated by Bill Roschen, President of LA’s Planning Commission, and Christopher Hawthorne, Architecture Critic for the LA Times, with an audience made up of architectural and planning professionals, City Hall insiders, transportation advocates, and community activists.

Faced with an opportunity to either demonstrate his architectural chops or to defer to the professionals and commit to partnering with experts, Beutner instead chose to speak confidently but superficially, expressing common platitudes but without solutions.

When talking about transit, Beutner pointed at the folly of a Green Line that doesn’t get to the Airport but failed to offer a solution or to comment on other struggling options such as the Flyaway.

Beutner took the time to point out that the Subway to the Sea doesn’t actually go to the sea but failed to address solutions or to demonstrate an understanding of the transit planning process or to even simply acknowledge that there is a difference between the Metro and the Metrolink.

Both Roschen and Hawthorne went to great lengths to establish the connectivity between land use, urban design, and mobility but Beutner failed to position himself as someone who could get LA moving.

“I wasn’t prepared to be so disappointed,” exclaimed the Transit Coalition’s Bart Reed, “but this guy has no idea how mass transit works or how it’s funded!”

Beutner riffed on Downtown’s Broadway Streetcar (it’s about managing resources), Leimert Park’s Train Station (it’s about good choices), High Speed Rail (it’s about priorities), and light rail down freeways (it’s about common sense).

Along the way he fumbled by referring to Streetcar/Leimert Park funding as fungible, by missing the recent developments in High Speed Rail planning, and by failing to recognize that light rail down freeways is typically disconnected from walkable communities.

While Beutner’s transit cred left his potential audience scratching their collective heads, his low-key style is likable, as are his anecdotes that come close to positioning him as the guy next door.

Beutner refers to himself as a simple guy who washed dishes, drove a truck, went to college, worked hard and gave proof to the validity of the American Dream by creating a company that went public and made him comfortably rich.

When asked about his four kids (aged 8 to 15) and if any of them had expressed an interest in becoming architects, he answered “They’re in their deconstruction phase.” This prompted an audience member to declare “Perfect for an LA architect!”

While telling a story of his early days, Beutner is quietly charming as he refers to himself as the original Twitterer, driving a floral delivery truck and sharing gossip from one customer to the next.

Along the way, his folksy tone fails him. His commentary on governmental absurdities is the equivalent of having a nutritionist point out that hot dogs come in packages of ten while buns come in packages of eight. It’s true but hardly a significant observation and completely irrelevant unless it comes with a plan for action.

“The City of LA has custom built trash trucks,” he notes, failing to point out the relevance, his solution or how this relates to the recent developments in commercial trash hauling in Los Angeles.

“Chicago’s Mayor Daley simply took bulldozers and did the work in the middle of the night,” he pointed out admiringly, while failing to make it clear if he was that kind of “get it done” candidate for Mayor.

“The City of LA owns loads of prime real estate that should be park space,” he observes, while failing to address how he would facilitate the transfer of property or fund the development and maintenance of parks or if he would simply well it off to balance the budget.

“Our sidewalks and our streets are collapsing,” he notes, drawing the audience in for an empathetic embrace, then leaving them hanging as he passes on the opportunity to present a plan for funding, for repairing, or for invoking the spirit of Daley in declaring himself as the guy who will get it done.

Granted, the AIA/LA is a tough audience, seasoned veterans of LA’s urban design battlefield who are well versed in community plans, zoning code, funding obstacles, and the democratization of land use policy and implementation.

But the AIA/LA crowd are also optimists, die-hard visionaries who still believe in transformation and winning them could have been as simple as invoking the skyline that must be protected but when challenged as to the identity of those buildings that must be protected, he came up empty.

Given another chance for historic preservation redemption, he again came up empty when asked what buildings we have lost that should have been protected.

Beutner spent 15 months inside City Hall, reportedly running the city for all practical purposes, an experience that armed him with enough anecdotes to fill the typical Candidate’s Forum and this was no exception.

When asked about the Planning department, he told a story about the LAPD.

When asked about the streamling City Hall, he told a story about homelessness.

When asked about appointing General Managers, he told a story about how many city departments it takes to change a light bulb.

When asked about the role of architecture in our community, he told a story about the ability of the Broad Museum to draw in the community and the world.

Austin Beutner has a fairly unique vantage point in the Mayoral race, with three City Hall insiders to one side and a grassroots outsider on the other. It is up to him to clearly identify himself as the candidate who brings charismatic presence to the role, or as the candidate who is incredibly aware of the intricacies of City Hall, or as the candidate who can tap into the world’s experts and manage them as they run the city or any of a number of combinations but he simply fell short.

He failed to work the room and to demonstrate the ability to charm individuals or read an audience.

He failed to demonstrate a mastery of the details of land use, urban design, planning policy, and mobility issues or to communicate, leaving the audience wondering if this is the candidate who can connect LA, literally and figuratively.

He relied on information from handlers and briefers that was superficial if not incorrect, leaving the audience to question his judgment and his ability to tap into LA’s pool of experts.

He referenced Great Cities from around the world, all of them led by charismatic characters who charm the masses or municipal powerhouses who fund and execute visions or great coaches who wrangle the best performances from teams of geniuses.

Beutner’s opportunity was to communicate that he was one of these three styles of leader and his performance fell short. Granted, he is a significantly successful man who is quite comfortable in many arenas and he speaks confidently and assertively.

He tells a story of his first days as Deputy Mayor, when he picked up the phone and called Steve Samples of USC and Gen Block of UCLA. The point of the story is to illustrate his wisdom in calling the two largest employers in LA as well as to ask for their help. “Nobody had ever called them before,” Buetner points out, “and this is where the expertise is found.”

Missing from this anecdote is the fact that two thirds of LA’s local economy are small businesses and the opportunity for Austin Beutner the Mayoral Candidate is for him to connect with individual operators, either as the charming charismatic candidate, or the municipal expert, or as the local guy who can lead professionals in the delivery of city services.

The LA chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA/LA) is committed to promoting the role of Architecture in LA’s municipal battlefield as the public grapples with urban design, planning, mobility, and land use policy issues.

The AIA/LA believes that the Mayoral race of 2013 is an important opportunity to engage the candidates in a conversation that allows the architectural community to communicate its priorities and the candidate to present their architectural street cred.

To this end, the AIA/LA is hosting a five part weekly series that allows each of the five leading Mayoral candidates to engage in a conversation about urban design, mobility, architecture, and LA’s built environment.

There are three more AIA/LA Mayoral Candidate Forums taking place over the next four Friday evenings. Kevin James is scheduled for Friday, March 2, followed by Wendy Greuel on Friday, March 9.

Visit City Watch LA for video of the evening as well as for highlights that feature Beutner’s comments on his role in City Hall and the need to address overlaps between city departments.

For more information on future AIA/LA Mayoral Candidate Forums, visit the AIA/LA website.

(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.)

“Mr. Brown” Takes His Act to City Hall

RETHINKING LA - This past Tuesday, “Mr. Brown” headed over to LA’s City Hall in order to attend the City Council’s regularly scheduled public meeting. He never made it.

Mr. Brown knew that parking opportunities downtown were expensive and limited so he took the Metro, arriving at the Civic Center station and walking east, pausing to admire the impressive architecture of the Times building, the LAPD Headquarters, and the Caltrans building.

As Mr. Brown followed his map to 200 N. Spring Street, he turned north and stood across the street from City Hall, a building so awe inspiring, he found himself simply standing and looking up at the world’s tallest base isolated structure. This was were he committed his first mistake of the day.

Mr. Brown crossed the street, using a crosswalk decorated with the LA City Seal and a peace dove, and walked up the granite steps, through the huge arches and into the Romanesque forecourt.

He paused to read the inscription over the doorway, “Righteousness Exalteth a People,” and emboldened by the words of Solomon he continued walking toward the front door of LA’s City Hall.

Again he paused, this time to examine the bronze bas relief carvings that memorialize half a dozen key events in LA’s history, including one with Commodore Robert Field Stockton and Major John Charles Fremont saluting the flag in “American Occupation 1846.”

Mr. Brown opened the door and took a couple of steps, pausing to allow his eyes to adjust to the sudden shift from the sunlight to the dimly lit atrium. He was greeted by a man in uniform, complete with a badge and a gun, who stood in his way.

“You can’t come in here.” said the uniformed greeter.

“I’m here to attend a public meeting.” explained Mr. Brown.

“You have to exit, go around the building, and enter through the back of the building. The front entrance is only for City of LA staff and officials.” said the doorman as if he was guarding LA’s most exclusive club.

“But I’m a member of the public here to attend a public meeting.” repeated Mr. Brown.

“Back up, go around the building, and use the back door.” repeated the officer from LA’s Office of Public Safety, this time a tad more gruffly than the first time.

Mr. Brown exited and circled the building, and entered through the back door where he was greeted by a full contingent of OPS officers who were operating screening equipment.

He placed his personal belongings on the conveyor belt and waited while a little old man was repeatedly sent through the screening machine, each time eliciting a beep that prompted the OPS officer to repeat the instruction “remove all metal objects.” The little old man would shift his cane from one hand to the other as he patted his pockets and searched for the offending security violation, coming up empty each time.

Eventually, the OPS officer and his partner noticed that the little old man was wearing suspenders, an oversight that prompted them to give him a lecture on the need to declare his suspenders in the future.

Mr. Brown was screened with no problems, and as he followed the little old man with the cane, another OPS officer bellowed “Come back here, I need to see your ID.”

“I’m here to attend a public meeting.” explained Mr. Brown.

“I need to see your ID.” repeated the OPS officer from behind the counter.

“Am I being detained?” asked Mr. Brown.

“No, you just need to show me your ID so I can give you this sticker.” said the OPS officer who was responsible for a clipboard filled with names and a sheet of stickers.

“Then you don’t need my ID, I’m here to attend a public meeting.”

“Oh!” said the OPS officer, “You’re using the Brown Act. You need to tell me that you’re using the Brown Act.”

“Actually, there are no magic words or passwords or special phrases needed in order to attend a public meeting under the Brown Act,” explained Mr. Brown, “One does not need to know the specifics of the Brown Act in order to be covered by the Brown Act. I’m here to attend a public meeting, you know it is covered by the Brown Act, and it is your legal obligation and sworn duty to allow me to attend without demanding ID.”

“Why are you giving me a hard time?” the OPS officer said, apparently a rhetorical question that was certainly beneath her role as a Sergeant with LA’s Office of Public Safety.

“Actually, it is you who is giving a member of the public a hard time,’ responded Mr. Brown, “first by ‘demanding’ identification from a member of the public who is simply trying to attend a public meeting and then by requiring a ‘magic phrase’ in order to invoke the Brown Act. You’re not only giving me a hard time, you’re committing a misdemeanor in the presence of law enforcement officers.”

Mr. Brown took his sticker from Sgt. “M” and began to walk toward the elevators when he thought twice and decided to talk to a supervisor. He asked a different OPS officer (budget constraints be damned, there were six OPS officers in the lobby of City Hall) and a radio request went out for the Watch Commander.

The Lieutenant on duty sent over a Sergeant, a large man who would definitely benefit from a few days in charm school. His disdain for Mr. Brown was palpable and his interest in the Brown Act guarantees was minimal, if any existed at all.

“I’m sure that if we were doing something wrong, the City Attorney would tell us.” Sgt. “L” explained, turning as if his confidence in the status quo was sufficient to end the conversation.

“But your officers seem to think that a demand for ID is acceptable and it isn’t.” explained Mr. Brown. “Further, they seem to think that there is a Brown Act password that must be exercised in order to invoke the Brown Act. That’s also not true.

“I’ not sure of any of the details of the Brown Act,’ Sgt. “L” explained, casting doubts on the efficacy of OPS supervision, “But the City Attorney tells us what to do and we do it. I’m sure if the City Attorney has a policy, it’s a legal policy.”

Mr. Brown realized that conversation with Sgt. “L” was going nowhere so he asked if he could file a complaint. Sgt ”L” said he had to go to his car for the form, a trip that took 20 minutes, resulting in the return of an empty-handed Sgt “L” who explained that he would have to go to Headquarters for the form. (OPS HQ is across the street)

In light of the time it took Sgt. “L” to simply get to his car which was parked at the curb, Mr. Brown considered how long it would take Sgt. “L” to actually cross the street and chose to visit OPS HQ himself. He crossed the street, entered the underground mall and found the OPS HQ, just past the Togo’s and to the right.

The OPS Watch Commander listened attentively with just a hint of fatigue and acknowledged that the City Attorney had performed Brown Act training, that the OPS request for ID is just a request, that there is no “magic phrase” that invokes the Brown Act, and that the City Attorney had distributed training materials to the OPS officers.

Mr. Brown asked for a copy of the Brown Act training materials, a request that brought a look of pain to the Watch Commander’s face. He shuffled a few stacks of documents and asked a Sergeant at the front desk if there was a copy of the Brown Act training procedures anywhere in the office. There was none.

After a bit of a search, he offered a substitute, a one-inch thick OPS Policies and Procedures Manual, complete with bright red cover that surely signified its importance.

Mr. Brown scanned through the manual and quickly located the section of the manual that addressed visitors who “either do no (sic) have identification or refuse to present identification upon request. Officers should not deny access to any person as long as they have been properly screened and their bags inspected (Refer to Chapter 6 Section XX-D).”

It was immediately apparent that nobody had actually read the manual because the manual directed the reader to Chapter 6 Section XX-D that is entitled “Dangerous Animal Escape and Response.”

This explains the look on the face of Sgt. “L” as he parked his car curbside and entered LA’s City Hall. He was apparently prepared for an encounter with a “Dangerous Animal Escape.”

While the line between “members of the public” and “dangerous animal escape” may be extremely thin in the eyes of City Hall’s security detail, California’s Brown Act still prevails and the public has the right to attend public meetings without fear of being treed, tranquilized, or chased by Animal Control.

Mr. Brown took the time to point out the typos in the OPS Manual, including the fact that OPS officers are told to give a Blue sticker to people who show their ID and Red stickers to the other members of the public, then offering contradictory instructions.

First “Officers who then observe a person wearing a red visitor badge should be cognizant of the reasons why it was issued.”

Then “However, officers should not treat the wearer with any unwarranted suspicion.”

The OPS Manual concludes by instructing “Officer must be mindful that City Hall is a public building, and therefore balance the duty to provide for the safety of the occupants with the duty to protect the rights of those wishing to attend public meetings.

Mr. Brown thanked the Watch Commander for his time and sent a request to the City Attorney for a copy of the Brown Act training materials that are used to instruct the Office of Public Safety officers. The request has so far been ignored.

As for the City Council meeting that Mr. Brown wanted to attend, he returned to City Hall but the doors to Council Chambers were locked and LA’s part-time City Council was gone for the day.

Mr. Brown has been taken to task by those who contend that asking for ID at the front counter of City Hall is such a small injustice, one that doesn’t warrant such a stubborn demand for adherence to the Brown Act.

Mr. Brown explains “If the City of LA doesn’t know enough about the Brown Act to allow the public to simply enter the building legally, then it is certain they are not aware of the other provisions of the Brown Act such as proper notification, informative agendas, making materials available to the public, and allowing appropriate public comment.”

It has been 59 years since the Ralph M. Brown Act was passed by the California State Legislature and it guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.

When the Brown Act was originally introduced, the Sacramento Bee wrote “A law to prohibit secret meetings of official bodies, save under the most exceptional circumstances, should not be necessary. Public officers above all other persons should be imbued with the truth that their business is the public’s business and they should be the last to tolerate any attempt to keep the people from being fully informed as to what is going on in official agencies. Unfortunately, however, that is not always the case. Instances are many in which officials have contrived, deliberately and shamefully, to operate in a vacuum of secrecy.”

Those words are as true now as they have ever been.

(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: 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.)

LAPD Caught Using Deadly (PR) Force

CityWatch, Dec 6, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 97

RETHINKING LA - As the dust settles on the now gated community of City Hall Park and the accolades over the LAPD’s “peaceful” engagement fade into background noise, it is apparent that the LAPD’s PR team is still working full force and with deadly force.

The first casualties occurred within the ranks of the embedded media, the “legitimate” media who were given access to the LAPD’s operations with a few strings attached. Apparently the conditions included avoiding tough questions and agreeing to act as a tool for the LAPD as the conversation continued.

LAPD media dies on the battlefield and a co-opted PR machine rises in its place.

Consider the recent LA Times report on the identities of those arrested during the removal of Occupy LA from City Hall Park. Did the LAPD feed this to the Times the way they “release” data on gang members as a mechanism for building an injunction case? Why did the data include employment information but nothing relevant such as the reason for arrest, whether charges had been filed, if the person had been released, and the bail amount?

While family members visited different jails in search of their loved ones but encountered a lack of information and a wall of “It takes time to process this many arrestees!” The LA Times was able to print a list of names on December 1, 2011 that included detail such as occupation, age, race, and location of residence.

How is the LAPD so clear when it comes to feeding the press but so confused when it comes to helping families find loved ones?

The second casualty was the LAPD’s commitment to Community Policing, a law enforcement strategy that relies on a partnership between the community and the police.

While the LAPD claims the high-road for restraining its forces from using pepper spray and batons, the “shock and awe” display was a clear “us vs. them” approach that positions the LAPD as the liberating army, not the partners in public safety.

When it takes 1400 police officers in military grade riot gear to arrest 300 protesters who have trained publicly in non-violent protest strategies, it is evident that the LAPD has no confidence in its ability to forge relationships, negotiate a peaceful process of arrests, and treat people with respect.

It’s important to note that the Occupy LA protesters initially engaged the LAPD and other law enforcement officers with cheers of “One of us!” and “We’re all 99%!” but that faded quickly as the LAPD worked hard to offend all, including spectators and non-pool media.

Officer Escamilla is captured on video pointing his shotgun at a reporter who yelled “You just pointed your weapon at me, that’s not necessary!” The LAPD officer in riot gear responded by leaning in and saying “Don’t worry about it!”

The LAPD’s “shock and awe” approach to Occupy LA is reminiscent of the LAPD’s approach to gangs under Chief Gates, one that depended on significant force and a “gung-ho” approach to policing.

If the LAPD’s military approach to Occupy LA is any indication, the people of LA can expect them to use this recent engagement as an argument for increasing their budget, their authority and their occupation of the City of Los Angeles.

The third casualty of the Occupy LA movement was the LAPD’s memory. Ten years ago, during the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, the LAPD came under fire for its handling of people arrested during everything from a bike ride, a concert, protests, and the convention itself.

The City paid out huge settlements based on the way arrestees where handled after their arrest, including the street detention, the bus trip, the multiple strip searches, the denial of access to lawyers and family, and the lengthy custody resulting in release with no charges filed.

In other words, the process becomes the punishment and the punishment comes without conviction.

The recent Occupy LA stories of the LAPD’s inability to smoothly process the detention of 300 protesters mimics the experiences of the 70 detainees during the DNC in 2000 who were awarded almost a million dollars simply based on the punitive process. And yet, the LAPD still relied on the LA Sheriff’s Department to transport the arrestees and the LAPD still concluded their engagement with no evident plan for processing the anticipated detainees.

Now that the LAPD’s PR machine has slowed down, perhaps the people of LA could share in a moment of silence as we mourn the recent casualties of the LAPD’s military engagement, including LA’s “legitimate” media, any delusions of the LAPD’s commitment to community policing, the LAPD’s connection with history and its ability to learn from the past.

(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’s Greatest Opportunity: The Polls

CityWatch, Nov 8, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 89

RETHINKING LA - Occupy LA’s greatest opportunity to impact the policies and actions that are responsible for eviscerating the middle class, for destroying our economy, for unleashing predatory greed and for selling political access to the highest bidder is to mobilize voters at the polls on election day.

In LA, that’s today in Council District 15 as the seat that was occupied by Janice Hahn is filled, or potentially filled, by one of the 15 certified candidates, 11 on the ballot and 4 as write-ins.

So far none of the candidates have made a strong play to embrace Occupy LA and at the same time, Occupy LA has failed to lay down campaign positions for the Candidates.

The Occupy LA movement has established a strong presence on the outside of City Hall, creating an environment that is a microcosm of a healthy community, complete with health care, child care, education, sanitation, security, food service, and a system of participatory government that raises the standard in its commitment to the individual.

But the refinement of the Occupy LA village will only result in a higher quality of life on the outside of City Hall, no small feat, but it’s still on the outside of City Hall and not on the inside where the dangerous policies and actions are taking place with unfettered abandon.

Now is the time for the 99% to move inside and to ask the hard questions of the Mayor, the City Attorney, the City Controller, the City Council and the City Department managers who are at the helm of the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world.

Now is the time for the 99% to identify the candidates for office who can account for their policies and actions and who have a demonstrated commitment to economic justice.

To be sure, the Mayor and the City Council have pandered to the Occupy LA crowd and they were treated like Rock Stars by a fawning audience who acted as if backstage access was a fair trade-off for failed leadership that has resulted in the surrounding collapse of a great city.

Missing from the dialogue were the hard questions:

Why is Los Angeles the Capital of Unemployment, where have you been and what are you doing about it?

Fully 11.7% of LA’s workforce is sitting idle, a rate that is 44% higher than the national 8.8% rate of unemployment. This situation is compounded by the City of LA’s poverty rate of 19.1%, which is 44.7% higher than the California poverty rate of 13.2%. [link]

Why is Los Angeles the Capital of Home Foreclosures, where have you been and what are you doing about it?

One in every 293 housing units in Los Angeles received a foreclosure notice in 2011. Five states account for 53% of the US foreclosure activity and of those states, California leads the pack and continues to show increases in default notices.

The recent increase in new foreclosure actions is attributed to the prior slowdown as a result of robo-signing and other documentation problems, a situation that foreshadows more bank repossessions in the coming months as the default process picks up. [link]

Why is Los Angeles the Capital of Homelessness, where have you been and what are you doing about it?

Fully 6% of LA’s population without a home. LA’s homeless population of 23,539 includes 8,131 Veterans, an increase of 9% over the last two years. African Americans represent just 9.6% of LA’s population but make up fully 43.7% of LA’s chronic homeless population.

The City of LA’s population of 3,792,621 is just 1.2% of the total American population of 308,745,538 yet its homeless population is fully 3.6% of the national homeless population of 649,917, fully three times the rate of homelessness as the rest of the country.

Why is Los Angeles the Capital of Collapsing Infrastructure, where have you been and what are you doing about it?

LA is leading the nation in collapsing infrastructure with fully 64% of its major streets in poor condition against a national average of 23%. This failure is complemented by 10,000 miles of sidewalks that are a full generation behind in maintenance, resulting in nearly half of LA’s sidewalks in need of repair with a projected price of $1.2 billion. This situation has resulted in debate over responsibility and an American with Disabilities Act class action lawsuit filed against the City of Los Angeles.

Adding to the threat of collapse is LA’s sewer system, on the one hand an engineering accomplishment, on the other hand a neglected network of 6,700 miles of sewage pipes, nearly a third of them more than 80 years old.

Why is Los Angeles the Capital of Dwindling City Services, where have you been and what are you doing about it?

Los Angeles is currently enjoying the largest municipal operating budget in its history, one that actually increased by 1% over last year and now exceeds $7 billion, yet is referred to as the budget that requires the citywide reduction in city services while residents pay more in fees, fines, penalties and permits.

LA’s 2011-2012 budget was presented as a response to “the most difficult financial circumstances in generations” and came with a claim that the budget addresses more that $1 billion in budget deficits, reduces the workforce by more than 4,000 positions, and stabilizes revenues. The Mayor and City Council then went on to cut the Police Department by $100 million, the Fire Department by $50 million, and the surviving City Departments by an average of 10% each while eliminating positions and implementing cost-recovery mandates that resulted in the restricted delivery of city services to only those who can afford to pay extra for them.

Mayor Villaraigosa delivered 100 ponchos to rain-soaked campers and City Council President Eric Garcetti sang a few rounds of Kumbaya but nobody has accounted for the lack of political leadership that has allowed Los Angeles to take its place as the Capital of Squandered Potential.

Now is the time for Occupy LA to demand that candidates for office, whether local or citywide, firmly commit to fair elections that belong to the people and are free of special interest money.

Now is the time for Occupy LA to identify candidates who recognize that people aren’t property and that corporations aren’t people.

Now is the time for Occupy LA to reward candidates who demonstrate integrity with positions that allow them to bring much needed oversight and accountability to City Hall.

Now is the time for Occupy LA to work to elect candidates who embrace the human rights that have been trampled on by a power structure that rewards unfettered greed.

Now is the time for Occupy LA to shape the argument in the upcoming elections, moving from Rock Star politics to a real referendum on human rights and economic justice.

Today’s election in Council District will probably result in a run-off special election between the top two vote-getters on Tuesday, January 17, 2012.

If Occupy LA is to move beyond the demonstration phase and into the “take a seat in City Hall” phase of changing the world, it will start with an aggressive campaign to impact the outcome of the City Council District 15 race.

Occupy LA’s ability to organize in the CD15 race will send a clear message to the Citywide political aspirants that Occupy LA truly represents the 99% and that the Occupy LA platform is the substance of political success.

It starts now and it takes place at the polls.

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

Occupy LA Faces the Ultimate Opponent: A Jaded Audience

CityWatch, Nov 4, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 88

RETHINKING LA - From New York’s Wall Street to LA’s Spring Street, the Occupation movement has spread from city to city with a message of discontent, one that starts with a long list of grievances, a very long list.

Opponents have employed a variety of tactics in their efforts to rebuff the protest actions, ranging from subtle acts such as depriving campers of their shelters to outright aggressive police force that has resulted in injuries and arrests.

Through it all, the Occupy LA movement has faced the most dangerous of opponents, a local audience that ignores the City Hall encampment for the most part, paying attention only long enough to sprinkle participants with contempt for shortcomings such as odor, style, and appearance.

In some ways, the Occupy LA movement has earned its keep simply by providing the LAPD with an opportunity to stand out from the rest of the world as a police force capable of negotiating a peaceful co-existence with those intent on demonstrating on public property.

At the same time, the Occupy LA movement has revealed the petty nature of LA politics. In the early days, Mayor Villaraigosa donated ponchos (paid for with public money?) to wet campers and City Council President Eric Garcetti declared “Stay as long as you need, we're here to support you.”

The honeymoon has since ended and the Mayor has said he won't put up with the demonstration indefinitely. Meanwhile, the Council has gone back to more pressing issues such as levying liens on residents and raising the penalties for barking dogs.

Critics of the Occupy LA movement are quick to complain that the agenda lacks refinement, clarity, and cohesiveness. Fair enough, it’s a pretty unwieldy list of complaints that brought people to the lawn, one that tends to meander as the result of allowing so many people to raise their voice.

But this is hardly a valid complaint. Anyone who spends more than a few minutes listening to the disjointed protests can figure out quite quickly, it’s about economic justice. If that’s too restrictive, let’s just call it justice.

No critic has gone so far as to oppose justice, yet when the people of Occupy LA start offering examples of our collective failure to ensure economic justice, they get criticized for going on and on through a list of grievances that literally does not stop.

The Declaration of Independence was long on complaints, dozens of them, and yet light on solutions save for the idealistic commitment to doing better. It took years for the long process of warnings, reminders, appeals, and petitions for redress to result in an action and then it took another decade to agree on how to move forward as a country.

Critics also complain that those occupying the public space surrounding LA’s City Hall are full of complaints but light on solutions. Again, an accurate charge that merely acknowledges the reality of an informed problem solving process that typically begins with the identification of the problem.

Is the person that sounds the fire alarm also responsible for providing the water? Does a medical patient complaining of symptoms also have to diagnose the malady in order to get treated?

The idea that only those with answers are allowed to ask questions is simply an argument for maintaining the status quo. It’s an objection posed by those who have a vested interest in maintaining the course.

Most of all, it demonstrates a willingness to ignore the problems by focusing on the messenger instead of identifying those responsible and putting the spotlight on them.

Critics continue by pointing out that Wall Street isn’t the only guilty party, that an equal amount of blame should be levied on the regulators and on Congress. This is also an accurate appraisal that merely spreads the net of guilt to those in power everywhere, including City Hall.

This ultimately brings the responsibility full circle and demands that we all account for the circumstances that allowed for the current economic crisis, one that continues to destroy lives while the critics complain about mismatched tents and drum circles.

After all, it is the people of LA who are willing to accept an absentee Mayor who is currently busy auditioning for his next gig. It is the people of LA who allow the City Council to abdicate on their responsibilities and instead spend inordinate amounts of time on the campaign trail. It is the people of LA who ask so little from their City that when actual work gets done, it’s considered “overtime” effort.

Wall Street is an amorphous entity that is easy to focus on but the real culprit is anyone who accepts mediocrity from City Hall, from Sacramento, from Washington, and from “the system” that allows financial bullies to prey on the public.

The critics should be careful because they’re culpable, in fact we all are.

Critics charge that the damage to City Hall’s turf lawn is justification for tossing Occupy LA from the high moral ground and evicting them from the green space. While it’s true that the occupation is responsible for killing the lawn, there are some that would consider this to be an improvement to City Hall, an opportunity to break from the wasteful tradition of turf lawns in favor of a more sustainable landscape.

In fact, the debate over City Hall’s turf lawn merely puts a spotlight on the City of LA’s ongoing pattern of mediocrity.

In a city that prohibits gas powered leaf blowers, why does the City of LA continue to use them? In a water challenged state that regularly imposes water rationing, why does the City of LA water the lawn to the point that it grows mushrooms?

Occupy LA should be thanked for challenging the turf lawn status quo and for giving City Hall an opportunity to rethink its commitment to unsustainable landscaping.

The LA Times took Occupy LA to task for destroying the lawn while one of its garden writers applauded the same behavior, concluding with a wish: “May protestors camp long enough that they indeed snuff the lawn around the Los Angeles City Hall. Then, may the City Council not only thank them, but also seize the moment to remove what remains of the cynical green skirt around their high white tower.”

The City of LA is not known for its ability to create great public space or for its ability to encourage people to share public space. The three sides of City Hall with Occupy LA activity all include “City Hall Employees Only” signs.

Occupy LA is challenging the sterile nature of City Hall’s lawns, redefining public space and causing a discussion to actually take place. They should be thanked, not criticized.

Critics hold that big-picture targets such as the Federal Reserve and Global Warming are such distant targets as to become irrelevant and Quixotic in nature. This is a good point but it only illustrates the need to continue the discussion, not to shut it down.

It is incumbent on the City of LA to ask what role it plays in the larger picture. As the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world, it seems reasonable to expect our leadership to go beyond 100 ponchos and a couple of verses of Kumbaya.

The Occupy LA movement is an incubator of discontent and while it focuses on refining its organization, its greatest contribution is the ongoing debate that is taking place in the press and in the community over its purpose, its presence, and its impact.

The City of LA is in the midst of an economic crisis of unprecedented proportions. LA is home to record levels of home foreclosures, homelessness, unemployment, and economic distress.

Yet the people in the best position to do something about it are somehow able to look past reality and instead focus on the smell of Occupy LA’s participants or on abstract discussions of the legality of an occupation of public space.

Meanwhile, the critics forget, we live in a city that is already occupied.

Los Angeles is occupied by educational failure, home to an educational system that fails to produce skilled and educated adults for LA’s workforce, resulting in the ongoing cycle of unemployment and crime.

Los Angeles is occupied by housing failure, home to record foreclosures and host to empty properties that blight communities while families go homeless.

Los Angeles is occupied by unemployment, home to record levels of people who simply can’t find a job in a market that is filled with competition from surrounding counties.

Los Angeles is occupied by an economic crisis, home to a hostile environment for small businesses that is long on obstacles and short on solutions.

Most of all, LA’s City Hall is occupied, on the inside, by people who believe that they can balance the city’s budget on the backs of the people who live here and who own businesses here. They propose to balance the city’s budget by increasing fees, fines, and penalties. They plan to collect this money by levying liens and garnishing wages.

They have no plan for increasing employment, for eradicating homelessness, for ending the home foreclosures, for producing a skilled workforce, for stimulating the economy, or for doing anything other than Occupying City Hall while LA spirals out of control.

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

Corruption in LA’s Housing Dept Out of Control … and Nowhere for the Buck to Stop

CityWatch, Oct 18, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 83

RETHINKING LA - Last week City Watch LA took LA’s Housing Department (LAHD) to task for its controversial Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) charging that it preyed on small landlords, failed to deliver the oversight it promised, left tenants in limbo and provided a safe-haven for squatters.

Over the weekend, the plot thickened as the LA Times covered a Housing Department employee who exploited her relationship with immigrant landlords, collecting payoffs from them and steering them to her contractor husband. The employee was convicted of felony bribery charges while her husband, also charged in the case, left for South Korea where he remains out of reach of police.

Most damning for the City and the Housing Department is the clear lack of oversight and accountability that has been revealed in incident after incident, going back ten years to when Laura Chick conducted an audit and declared REAP broken.

Last year’s arrest and conviction of an LAHD employee failed to motivate LAHD management to call attention to the case, leaving high-level officials in the city attorney's office, the Personnel Department and the Department of Building and Safety in the dark until informed by the LA Times.

The Assistant General Manager responsible for the REAP program, Robert Aldape, didn’t investigate further to see if there were other incidents, saying employee communications with customers aren't closely monitored.

Speaking of the convicted employee, Aldape said "We simply don't know what interactions she had, people come to the public counter all the time, so there would be no way to track it."

Insiders at the LAHD contend that Aldape has personal motivation to take a laissez-faire attitude, pointing to his prior role as the “executive director” of the LA Housing Law Project, a “tenant advocacy non-profit” which he operated right out of his law office, a private firm that made its money by suing small landlords.

This two-hat journey to the #2 position at the LAHD has allowed Aldape to position himself as a “non-profit director” when dealing with housing issues but as a “law firm principal” when making campaign contributions.

Over the last decade, a cottage industry has blossomed in support of REAP, made up of nonprofit corporations that provide “tenant outreach services” under contract with the LAHD. Critics charge that the nonprofits, once armed with critical information from the LAHD, turn their contracts into lawsuit generation machines against the small landlords who lack the sophistication to fight back.

Faced with a lawsuit, many of the small landlords simply roll over, negotiate a monetary settlement, and look for an exit strategy.

A review of the nearly 1700 properties under the REAP control reveals a disproportionate number of 2 to 4 unit buildings that have been taken from the control of the property owner, serving as anecdotal evidence in support of the landlords’ charges.

The City of LA has heard the allegations of those who claim to suffer at the hands of the LAHD, prompting Councilmember Parks to call on the LAHD and the City Attorney’s Office to investigate the complaints and come up with a report.

This stirred another round of allegations, this time from within the department, from staffers who contend that “The foxes have taken over the henhouse and are partying up. They are calling the tune, and the unwitting public is footing the bill.”

Aldape appeared before the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee and reported that his investigation had found “nothing to substantiate the allegations.”

This self-evaluating systemic of oversight is somehow sufficient for the City Council but when an employee was convicted of felony bribery, Aldape claimed an inability to monitor the actions and communications of employees.

Charges that the LAHD has been run as a personal fiefdom of upper management go back to the days of Mercedes Marquez who left for Washington DC in 2009 to take a position as Assistant Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development Department.

Critics claim that Marquez left in her wake a highly polarized and demoralized department that continues to take its direction from political patrons, leaving potential whistleblowers in fear of the self-investigating regime, and communities vulnerable to the REAP administration that leaves tenants, landlords, and neighbors equally abused.

REAP is the city administered program that evaluates rental properties when they are cited for code violations and if the property is declared “unsafe” or “untenantable” by the LAHD, the city steps in and collects the rent with a discount of up to 50%, depending on whether the conditions are “nuisance” or “hazardous.”

Landlords, tenants and neighbors complain that the good intentions have failed to materialize in good performance, resulting instead in foreclosed properties, blighted buildings, and neighborhoods terrorized by squatters.

Demonstrating the controversial nature of LA’s housing program, the Mayor’s Deputy Mayor of Housing & Economic Development Policy is now referred to as the Deputy Mayor for Economic and Business Policy.

LA’s Housing Department is in such dire straits that even the Mayor’s office knows it’s time to step away from the carnage.

(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 .)

LA’s ACE Program Cuts Both Ways

CityWatch, Sept 30, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 78

RETHINKING LA - “Don't worry,” said the trees when they saw the axe coming, “The handle is one of us.”

LA’s proposed Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) Program is positioned as a panacea capable of curing all that ails the broken City of Los Angeles, including the ongoing budget crisis, collapsing infrastructure, threats to public safety, quality of life issues, courthouse backlogs, overworked and understaffed municipal departments, and a full generation of inefficient code enforcement that has left the landscape of LA littered with billboards, pot shops, and busted sidewalks.

High horse advocates of the ACE program have become so enthralled with the idea of efficient code enforcement that they have missed the parallel journey of Council File No. 05-1853, a City Attorney initiated draft ordinance which would make residents responsible for sidewalk repair.

In other words, as the residents of LA are distracted by the promise of the proposed ACE program, the City Attorney is working to return responsibility for the city’s broken sidewalks to the property owners who will then find themselves on the enforcement end of the newly armed ACE program.

The City Attorney has a strong motivation for getting the ACE program underway and then for shifting responsibility for sidewalk repair to property owners due to the pending settlement of a class action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit which is scheduled for court approval on October 20, 2011.

The current proposed settlement would commit the City of LA to the implementation of a 25 year plan for bringing the City of LA’s sidewalks into ADA compliance. Under current budget conditions, this is hardly a promise the City of LA can make but by shifting the responsibility of sidewalk repair to residents and then arming the City Attorney with ACE enforcement efficiency, the people of LA will soon discover that ACE is the sword that cuts both ways.

The ACE program was initially presented with strong claims of revenue enhancement potential. City Attorney presentations to community groups pointed out that currently, fines go to Sacramento but under ACE, the City of LA gets to keep the money.

Charges that the City of LA was only interested in balancing the budget on the backs of those who can afford it the least have prompted a CLA directive which clarifies that the purpose of the ACE program is to improve code enforcement, not to generate revenue. Of course, saying so doesn’t make it so, but it’s a nice gesture that is only contradicted by reality and the words of Councilmembers and Department managers.

The ACE program is billed by the City Attorney’s office as an alternative to the current system that treats municipal code violations as misdemeanors, resulting in a clogged system that currently has a backlog of 10,000 cases.

ACE is positioned as a simple administrative process of municipal code violation enforcement that will foster “timely compliance with the law in order to protect public health and safety and provide a fair and effective administration of justice.”

The proposed ACE program includes provisions for City Attorney inspectors with the authority to issue Administrative Citations for code violations that they witness. This power is buried in a draft ordinance that lacks clearly defined roles, authorities, and oversight for the proposed Enforcement Officers and is a significant weakness in a proposal that grants unprecedented power to the City Attorney’s office.

Proponents of the program have seized on ACE as a remedy to the quality of life issues that include barking dogs, loud parties, loitering, dirty sidewalks, gambling, filming without a permit, dogs on the beach, fireworks, dog defecations, and curb numbers getting painted without a permit.

Opponents of the program counter that the ACE program is complaint driven, that it results in more uneven application of the municipal code, that it results in selective enforcement of the law, and that it sacrifices due process in return for revenue generation, all at the expense of those who can afford it the least.

The judicial element of the ACE program is made up of Administrative Hearing Officers who are either under the oversight of the City Attorney’s office or completely independent of the City Attorney’s office, depending on whether you are listening to City Attorney representatives on Council Phone or on the Larry Mantle Show on KPCC. When you consider that the proposed ordinance gives the Administrative Hearing Officers subpoena authority, it seems reasonable to delay the ACE proposal until this issue is resolved.

When the Committee expressed concerns about the proposed subpoena authority, Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter jumped quickly, too quickly in fact, to defend it by saying “this allows those charged with a citation to call witnesses.” To hear him speak, it sounds like the cited party will end up with subpoena authority. Regardless, he was unclear on whether this was at the discretion of the Hearing Officer or if it was a right of the cited party. Again, it seems reasonable to delay the ACE proposal until this issue is resolved.

At every turn, the proponents of the proposed ACE program extol the virtues of a system that “decriminalizes” Municipal Code violations, allowing residents to simply pay a fine and go on their way. Missing is a discussion of the due process that also disappears and the resulting system that limits the rights of the charged yet expands the powers of the City Attorney.

Administrative Hearings are final for the residents of Los Angeles and if the ruling is against them, “no further appeal may be filed pursuant to the provisions of this Code.” Yet if the ruling is in favor of the resident, the City Attorney can still pursue “any and all remedies provided by law.”

While the decriminalization of the actual code violation is touted as a benefit, the result is a swift journey to judgment where the failure to abide by the Administrative Order or pay the Administrative Fine is subject to “criminal remedies, civil action, injunctive relief, specific performance, and the recordation of a lien or a notice of the Administrative Violation against real property.” The penalties, coupled with the threat of enforcement, are hardly in scale with decriminalized violations. Again, it seems reasonable to delay the ACE proposal until this issue is resolved.

Charges that the proposed ACE program, as drafted by the City Attorney, is nothing more than an employment strategy with a funding stream are hard to ignore when the draft ordinance provides for the recovery of “reasonable attorney’s fees and all costs.” If the ACE proposal is truly an efficient program, the City Attorney’s office should be experiencing savings, not elbowing its way to the feeding trough in an embarrassing display of bureaucratic gluttony.

This past Monday, the proposed ACE program made another appearance at the City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee, drawing a standing room only crowd that spoke passionately about the ACE program, with 16 members of the public in favor of ACE and 14 members opposed.

The City Hall spin team watched the Committee send the ACE motion back to the City Attorney for a systemic overhaul, a “continuance” that was erroneously referred to as “unanimous endorsement.” The split audience was also referred to as supportive, completely dismissing the positions of those who showed up to protest.

The proposed ACE program, as presented by the City Attorney’s office, fell far short of the City’s Chief Legislative Analyst standards, enduring 14 recommendations for adjustment from the CLA and a fairly significant round of detailed concerns from the Committee, resulting in a continuance to Monday, October 3, when the City Attorney will return with another version of the proposed ACE program.

The original motion that put the proposed ACE program in motion was made in January of 2010 by Councilman Koretz, seconded by Councilman Parks, and positioned as an opportunity to create “a more efficient and effective code enforcement program through the use of administrative citations, as an alternative to legal action.”

The long journey to this week’s continuance has been one of Budget and Finance Committee instructions and City Attorney responses, a see-saw battle that pits the original intentions of Councilman Koretz against the desires of the City Attorney’s office.

The City Attorney’s draft ordinance does not restrict, limit, or specify which Municipal Code Sections would be covered or enforceable under the ACE program, in spite of prior instructions from the Committee to specify participating departments and relevant code sections.

Councilman Englander asked Chief Deputy City Attorney Carter if the proposed ACE program applied to LA’s entire Municipal Code and he received a very quiet affirmative answer, prompting another directive to the City Attorney to prepare a list that limits and clarifies the appropriate codes.

Councilman Koretz acknowledged the concerns of the public about due process, uneven application of the law, the vulnerability of a complaint driven system, and the risk of selective prosecution, all of which prompted him to insist that the ACE program be unfolded slowly as a pilot program, an instruction that has met resistance from the City Attorney. Koretz’s final position was that the LAPD was the only department to be involved in the initial “pilot” phase and that the Housing Department and Animal Services would be the next two in line.

Committee Chair Parks acquiesced to Koretz’s suggestion that the program start slowly with the LAPD, expressing disappointment that the pilot didn’t include Housing and Animal Services, and pointing out that the current budget already included anticipated revenue from Animal Services code enforcement actions. Parks was firm in his contention that the Department of Building and Safety was an unsuitable participant in the ACE program because the department was “in a quagmire.”

Councilman Englander noted that if the City of LA is about to get busy enforcing municipal code such as the prohibition of gas powered leaf blowers, it should first start by putting an end to its own code violations, referring to the City’s use of illegal leaf blowers.

The irony to having the LAPD serve as the test pilot for the proposed ACE program is that the LAPD’s new division facilities are all built in violation of LAMC 12.21, the same section that is used to cite residents for land use violations. In fact, a significant number of people that spoke in opposition were there with complaint driven 12.21 violations that had resulted in threats of “liens, garnishment, and other legal actions” all because of over-in-height fences.

There is no doubt that the City of LA is mired in a tremendously inefficient system of code enforcement but to embrace the current ACE program is to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.

To those who stand ready to call in their neighbor for that barking dog, pause for a moment and look out the window at your sidewalk. If it is broken, remember that the sword cuts both ways and while your neighbor is muzzling his dog, you will be repaving your sidewalks.

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

LA’s ACE Program Comes with a Big Tip Jar

CityWatch, Sept 27, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 77

RETHINKING LA - When City Hall starts a conversation by invoking a recap of “these challenging economic times” you can count on another cut to city services, another increase in fees and fines, or a combination of both.

The City Attorney’s proposed Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) program is a classic example of the City’s commitment to balancing the budget on the backs of the public while reprioritizing the delivery of city services that can be monetized.

LA’s proposed ACE program is positioned as a “broken windows” solution to crime prevention that also decriminalized minor code violations and allows LA’s residents to simply pay administrative fines for their wicked ways, thus avoiding the burden of due process and judicial oversight.

This hollow commitment to crime prevention and compassionate enforcement is a transparent and thinly disguised attempt to generate revenue at the expense of those who can afford it the least.

The “broken windows” theory of crime prevention was first presented by social scientists James Wilson and George Kelling in an article titled “Broken Windows” that offered this example:

“Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.

Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars.”

If the City Attorney is a true believer in the “broken windows” theory of crime prevention, surely we can expect the ACE program to also focus on the people responsible for the broken streets of LA and the broken sidewalks of LA. But this is not the case.

The City Attorney’s “broken windows” argument is a red herring that distracts the public from the larger failings of City Hall and the ever dwindling delivery of city services, instead focusing on the residents and squeezing those who can afford it the least.

As for the notion that the proposed ACE program would decriminalize small code violations, if the City Attorney was sincere, he’d do what he’s doing now, refuse to prosecute them as crimes. But the ACE program actually treats the violations administratively, levies fees and fines, and then treats the payment of the penalty criminally, expediting the process by limiting due process.

During the Dark Ages, it was a common tradition for those on the way to the gallows to “tip the executioner” in the hope that the process would be swift and painless, in fact some even paid to have the axe sharpened.

LA’s proposed ACE program provides the City Attorney an enforcement fee, an administrative fee, and even sharpens the procedural axe so that the code enforcement process can be swift and painless, perhaps even fatal, to those who are already struggling to stay afloat financially.

LA’s proposed ACE program is the beginning of the Dark Ages for the residents of Los Angeles, an era where justice goes to those who can afford to pay while those who are already suffering in “these challenging economic times” will be subjected to liens, garnishments, and criminal prosecution, simply for failing to tip the executioner.

One of the most common justifications for the City Attorney’s scheme is the common City Hall claim that there is a legal requirement for the City to investigate all complaints and to prosecute accordingly. Yet when the CA’s office, the Council offices, and the investigating offices are challenged on this claim, none of them can produce the legal statute to support this position.

The fact is, LA’s proposed ACE program is built on a complaint driven system that is rebranded as “community policing” but in reality is the empowerment of neighbor against neighbor without the necessary checks and balances.

LA’s proposed ACE program is often compared to programs in other cities such as San Diego but no mention is made of the fact that code violation complaints went up after the implementation of their ACE program went into effect.

LA’s current complaint driven system is already out of control with no checks and balances and the proposed ACE program simply expedites the operation of a broken system.

Consider the City’s handling of four houses that sit side by side in East Hollywood, right in the middle of a gang injunction zone. The first home, the third home and the fourth home were all subjects of complaints from one neighbor for over-in-height fences. The city cracked down and levied fines ($325), fees ($550), penalties ($1925) and asked for a variance ($4800).

Meanwhile the second house is abandoned, the front yard is filled with vehicles and the building is filled with squatters. Yet the city doesn’t respond. There’s nobody to fine, no resident to pay the penalty, no funding source for inspections, no owner to pay for a variance.

The same complaining neighbor has turned in homeowners throughout the community for violations that have resulted in investigations and actions that exceed other communities by a ratio of 60 to 1. This isn’t justice or even a prioritization of public safety, it’s simply turbo-charging a complaint driven system that results in the uneven application of the law and selective prosecution.

LA’s priority is Public Safety and it is imperative that the different departments and agencies that have a piece of the public safety mandate work together.

Creating paupers out of victims who build fences to protect their homes, their property and their families is no way to address public safety, it’s a naked attempt to fund failing departments.

The current proposed ACE program has been stripped of most references to revenue generation but the truth remains, it is a classic example of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s cost recovery mandate taken to the point of absurdity.

In fact, the ACE program’s development included much debate over the revenue in the Code Compliance Fund, initially under the City Attorney’s control, now under the City Council’s control, demonstrating that the essence of the ACE program is funding.

This position was echoed at Saturday’s Congress of Neighborhoods when Ray Chan, Executive Officer of the Department of Building and Safety clearly articulated “The new fee structure helps the General Fund so the General Fund can provide funding for the function of the Department.”

Code enforcement starts at home and if City Attorney Carmen Trutanich were serious about enforcing the law, he’d start with City Hall. He would insist that the City of LA abide by the Federal mandate to bring the streets and sidewalks up to ADA compliance and he’d put the focus where it belongs, on the criminals, not on the residents.

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