NC Leaders Fashion DONE Restructure Plan: Head for Collaboration with the E&N and the Mayor

CityWatch, Pub: Feb 16, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 13

Armed with the City Charter in one hand and a plan for the reorganization of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment in the other, Neighborhood Council activists claim they can deliver significant savings, increase efficiency, and improve effectiveness, all in return for a place at the table.

The simple request is that the City Council and Mayor partner with the neighborhood councils in the re-organization of DONE and in the development of the three-year plan for the neighborhood council system.

This past Saturday, 88 people gathered in Hollywood for a BudgetLA meeting that featured a presentation on a grass roots proposal to reorganize DONE and to create a "hybrid" system that would focus on core priorities which include governmental relations, public relations, and training.

The plan is a starting point, one that presents the City Council and the Mayor with an opportunity to partner with the neighborhood councils in restructuring a neighborhood council machine that is cost-effective and user-friendly.

Tuesday’s (2-16-10) Education & Neighborhoods Committee is the first stop for the neighborhood council activists, one that will include a presentation of the DONE re-organization plan and a formal response to the five agendized CAO recommendations.

BudgetLA will meet with the Mayor’s office also this week for a collaborative effort at restructuring the DONE. BudgetLA is advocating a plan that reduces the Department staff to the number needed for basic and core services … and outsourcing funding, elections and training. In the BLA plan, NCs assume volunteer responsibility for some of the election and training programs.

The DONE re-org plan comes with the endorsement of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition on Saturday the 6th and BudgetLA on Saturday the 13th. The E & N Special Meeting response was endorsed by BudgetLA on the 13th.



Neighborhood Council activists have been in emergency meetings every weekend since the beginning of the year to tackle the budget crisis and to ensure that neighborhood councils have a role in the journey.

More than 250 participants … including leaders from 75 different neighborhood councils … have attended meetings featuring speakers such as Alex Rubalcava on pension reform, John Mumma from the Police Protection League, Julie Butcher of the SEIU, and Wendy Greuel, the LA City Controller.

Through it all, the BudgetLA commitment has been to inform the public, to engage the public, to empower the public and to get neighborhood councils a seat at the budget crisis solutions table.

Saturday's BudgetLA meeting featured special guests BongHwan Kim, General Manager of DONE, Jerry Kvasnicka, Independent Election Administrator, and Lupe Solorio from Community Partners. BH expressed his confidence in the re-org plan and his optimism that we could work together on core priorities that are cost effective and efficient.

Jerry Kvasnicka gave his assurance that neighborhood council elections could be conducted at a greatly reduced expense and with an increase in neighborhood council participation. Lupe Solorio offered financial oversight and out-sourcing options that include administration, training and accounting services.

In all three cases, the specifics of the re-org, the elections, and the financial oversight remain to be worked out but the message was that we have choices, if we work together to make them happen.

Ultimately, the neighborhood councils have a plan and it all starts with the Mayor and the City Council embracing neighborhood councils as part of the solution.

The journey starts Tuesday:

• Education & Environment Committee
February 16, 2010
3:00 pm
City Hall - Council Chambers
200 Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

To listen by phone: 213-621-2489

To contact the E & N Committee:

Councilmember Paul Krekorian
Paul.Krekorian@lacity.org
213-473-7002
http://Twitter.com/PaulKrekorian
http://Facebook.com/Krekorian
http://CD2Policy.wordpress.com- leave your comments online!

Councilmember Janice Hahn
Janice.Hahn@lacity.org
213-473-7015

Councilmember Dennis Zine
Dennis.Zine@lacity.org
213-473-7003

• Collaboration Meeting with the Mayor’s Office this week. Check www.budgetla.org for day, time and location.

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

LADOT and City Planning revisit "The errors of the past!"

The LADOT and City Planning have a "secret meeting" planned for a select number of bike activists along with representatives from three city council offices, all in a clear demonstration that the public process is of low priority in the ongoing saga of the City of LA's Proposed Bike Plan. (aka the $450,000 two year long uncoordinated journey of professional malpractice led by the Department of "No!")

At issue is the meeting that is planned for this Tuesday @ 4:00 pm (shh! It's a secret!) where the LADOT and City Planning are intending to "preview" the new and improved Proposed Bike Plan, the one that Michelle Mowery, LA's Bikeways Un-Coordinator, referred to on KPCC Radio last week as having elements that the public hasn't seen yet. That doesn't speak well for the two year long process of gear-grinding and other infeasiBULL planning injustices.

There are two explanations for the upcoming "secret meeting" process for the Proposed Bike Plan unveiling:

1) The LADOT and City Planning have forgotten how the community meetings went in 2008, when community members complained vocally and with great enthusiasm about the fumbled opening process that was limited to four meetings of two hours each, light on dialogue and heavy on post-its and poster board. These meetings serve as a low point in the civic engagement process and perhaps the LADOT and City Planning completely forgot that to exclude is a huge mistake. Perhaps they forgot that excluding the public is a bad idea and the 'secret meeting" is the result of simple incompetence.

2) The LADOT and City Planning might remember clearly that the participation of the public raises the expectation and sets a standard for performance in excess of the departmental intentions. Bike Activists have long held that the Proposed Bike Plan process was flawed from the beginning, when the Bikeways Un-Coordinator drafted the scope of work, put it out to bid, selected the consultant, supervised the consultant, refined the initial Bike Plan proposals, implemented the infamous "Infeasible" status and then retreated into the "budget crisis" retreat that allowed a regrouping, this time claiming that there was no more money for the consultant. Perhaps the "secret meetings" is a simply calculated attempt to circumvent the public process and to get to the finish line.

Either way, this "secret meeting" is infeasiBULL!

City Council President Eric Garcetti, PLUM Committee Chair Councilman Ed Reyes, and Transportation Committee Chair Councilman Bill Rosendahl are currently participants in the "secret meeting" and their staff are collecting the names of "friendlies" (three per CM!) who can meet with LADOT and City Planning for a limited review of the Proposed Bike Plan. The Councilmembers would be well advised to reconsider their affiliation and inadvertant endorsement of this "briefing" that is, at best, a simple case of incompetence but at worst, a demonstration of subtrefuge.

The City of Los Angeles has a Bicycle Advisory Committee, one made up of 15 people representing the 15 Council Districts and 4 more people who represent the Mayor. The 19 members of the Bicycle Advisory Committee met just last week and the City of LA's Bikeways Un-Coordinator submitted a written report on, among other things, the Proposed Bike Plan. No mention was made of this "secret meeting" but that is probably because it is...a secret! How is it that the LABAC is left out of the loop? That's standard operating procedures for the LADOT and City Planning, both of which consistently fail to involve the very people our elected officials have designated as their representatives and advisors.

There is one more possible explanation for the "restricted" access of the "secret meeting" and that is the sheer size of the Proposed Bike Plan is too much or average mortals. At several hundred pages of bikeways planning fodder, light on vision but heavy on background information, the Proposed Bike Plan even has a diagram of a four-way stop intersection, just in case none of us have ever seen one. The Proposed Bike Plan has proven mildly interesting but painful to print, and even more tedious to read, all as one hopes that the vision for Los Angeles will magically appear if one simply sticks with it. Perhaps the "secret meeting" is limited to speed readers, those who can digest hundreds of pages of Proposed Bike Plan in a single sitting, offering insightful feedback and recommendations that will make us all proud and that will make LA a great place to ride.

That leaves us with three possible explanations for the "secret meeting" scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 3:00 pm.

1) Incompetence
2) Subtrefuge
3) Technocratic Superiority

Regardless of the explanation, the "secret meeting" is a flawed process, consistent with the LADOT and City Planning journey, but completely unacceptable to the people of Los Angeles who deserve accountability, responsibility, and the opportunity to participate in the process and on the delivery of the final product.

This "secret meeting" is infeasiBULL!

LA City Council - "Failure to Deliver"

Los Angeles is a City that loves to order departmental surveys, concept reports, project studies, recommendations and proposals. What Los Angeles doesn't do well is deliver.

It's been two and a half years since the LA City council, over the objections of the LADOT, acted decisively and made it illegal to park in a Bike Lane in Los Angeles. Unfortunately the LADOT and the LAPD are still ill-equipped to enforce the ban and the ordinance remains irrelevant.

It's been a little over three years since the City Council approved the contract with Illium and Associates for Bike Maps which we argued would be redundant since the Metro does county-wide maps that are of better detail and quality than the city maps. The City Council moved forward and approved the $400,000 contract but that was the last movement to be made. Three years later, is Ilium developing those maps? Is Alta Planning also developing Bike Maps as part of the Bike Plan process?

Last year CM's Huizar and Perry said "I FURTHER MOVE that the Department of Transportation, in partnership with the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee and the General Services Department, be requested to develop a mass parking policy and designate an efficient place and manner to lock up large number of bicycles for individuals who come to City Hall as a part of a group." Maybe it was just a joke and we fell for it. Ha, ha! Seriously, how hard is it to lock up bikes at City Hall? Too tough for the LADOT to figure out. They study, we wait.

It's been over 18 months since CM's Garcetti and Reyes got all interested in Sharrows and said "I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council direct the Department of Transportation to develop a "Shared Lane Pavement Markings," also known as "sharrows," pilot program. So far, nothing except that the plan to engage in a study is almost underway. Meanwhile, Long Beach has put in colored Sharrows and the Department of DIY has put in homemade Sharrows.

It's been 18 months since CM's Greuel and Garcetti were inspired by the bike-share programs of the Great Cities they visited, returning to LA and commanding "I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council instruct the Department of Transportation to examine the feasibility of creating a bike sharing program in the City of Los Angeles and submit recommendations to the Transportation Committee within 45 days." Tough talk! New Transportation committee Chair Rosendahl liked it so much, he gave the same instructions to the LADOT last week.

Meanwhile, on February 24, Claremont and Covina will be cutting the ribbon on "Bikestation Claremont and Bikestation Covina, the first bicycle and alternative transportation center “network” in the United States."

It would be great to have the City Council's Transportation Committee visit Claremont and Covina for the Bikestation ribbon cuttings but the 24th is an important day in LA, everybody will be on the 10th floor as LAPD Chief Charlie Beck visits the Transpo Committee. Will he have the Hummer vs. Cyclist report from last year?

It's been almost a year since a group of cyclists encountered a motorist behind the wheel of a Hummer, sans license plate, and ended up in a Wilco Tango Foxtrot encounter. Three times the Transportation Committee has directed the LAPD to appear to report on the incident and the subsequent investigation but in all three appearances the LAPD neglected to bring the actual LAPD report, resulting in a lot of "I don't know. I'll have to check." responses. Will Beck produce the report? Will Rosendahl follow up on the failure of the LAPD to respond to his instructions?

It's been over a year since the City Council embraced the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and boldly directed "the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Planning Department, Department
of Public Works, and Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee, in consultation with the City Attorney and the Los Angeles Police Department, to report with recommendations on how to
incorporate the principles enshrined in the "Cyclists' Bill of Rights" into the City of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan and other relevant documents and practices." That went nowhere fast.

The City Council has demonstrated clearly that it is incapable of following up on the many instructions it puts in play. Hence the need for community oversight. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that LA's Budget, the delivery of services, and the civic process itself be open and transparent. The public must be at the table.

LA Times confuses "mishap" with "Violation of State Law"

The LA Times, elbow firmly on the pulse of our community, just reported that "Warren Olney, longtime host of the public-affairs shows "To the Point" and "Which Way, L.A.?" on KCRW-FM (89.9), is off the air this week after suffering injuries in a bicycle mishap Thursday."

Perhaps the writer missed my post entitled "Words Matter" and doesn't realize that terms such as "mishap" become the obstacles that we must overcome in our battle to draw attention to the cavalier behavior of motorists toward cyclists. Soft words neutralize acts that are dangerous, illegal, and a threat to the cyclists who ride in an environment that allows motorists to diminish their responsibility by allowing the "I didn't see the cyclist!" defense in an auto assault.

To be fair, the LA Times is hardly alone.

Enci and I were recently on Washington Blvd, early in the evening, when we came across a scene that always makes our hearts skip a beat; paramedics, police, lights flashing and a bike lying in the middle of the street. We immediately circled the area, looking to see if the cyclist was a friend. Such is life in LA, the land of anonymity sprinkled with moments that personalize the experiences, both good and bad.

It turns out that the cyclist had been doored by a motorist 1) who was apparently unable to park next to the curb and 2) who opened the door into traffic without looking to see if the lane was clear. The Culver City Police were there and the motorist was explaining "But I never saw him!" to two officers and a supervisor who nodded with apparent understanding. They chatted and the motorist left the scene.

As for the cyclist, he was in fair shape and they loaded both him and his bike into the ambulance and transported him to the hospital.



There are three problems here:

1. The Culver City Police didn't take photos, draw diagrams, pace off the scene or consider the bike as evidence. They just made sure "the debris" was picked up and that the street was clear.
2. The Culver City Police told me that the City of Culver City didn't have an 18" ordinance requiring motorists to park within 18" of the curb. That may be true, it's just irrelevant. The requirement is a part of the California Vehicle Code, and doesn't require the local authority to bless it, just enforce it.
3. The Culver City Police also seemed unaware that it is a violation to "door" a cyclist and when I mentioned it to the officer in response to his explanation that the motorist didn't see the cyclist, he asked "Are you a lawyer?" When I said no, he chuckled, patted my shoulder and told me to have a good evening.

Ignorance and condescension, what a combination! The investigating officer didn't know that the motorist's behavior may have been not only contributed to the cyclist's injuries but may have also been a violation of the law.

Washington Blvd. is a brutal street for cyclists with fast traffic and lots of conflict, ie. driveways, sidestreets, turning vehicles, and car doors opening into the traffic lane.

As Culver City engages in its Bike and Ped Master Plan process, it would be great to put some emphasis on the Education of those responsible for Enforcement and to work on supporting cyclists and their right to ride the streets and to get home safely at the end of the day, just like anybody else.

I'm sorry to hear that Warren Olney was doored and I hope he heals quickly and is back on the air soon. I'm also hopeful he can draw attention to the safety threat that "dooring" represents to cyclists and that he can speak up for others, especially the anonymous cyclist who took a door on Washington Blvd. a couple of weeks ago.

Most of all, I want the Culver City Police Department to get familiar with the California Vehicle Code and to make the streets of Culver City safe for cyclists. They have quite a journey ahead.

CVC 22502(a) requires a motorist to park the motor vehicle within 18 inches of the curb;

CVC 22517 prohibits a person from opening the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of such traffic.

CityWatchLA - Find a Bright Spot and Clone It

CityWatch, Feb 9, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 11

Fast Company magazine features an article by columnists Chip Heath and Dan Heath that proposes a counter-intuitive approach to problem solving, especially when the problem is one of significant size.

Find a bright spot and clone it.

That's the first step to fixing everything from addiction to corporate malaise to malnutrition. A problem may look hopelessly complex. But there's a game plan that can yield movement on even the toughest issues. And it starts with locating a bright spot -- a ray of hope.

As the City of Los Angeles grapples with a budget crisis that calls for complex solutions of revenue enhancement, of systemic efficiencies, of budget cuts, and of staffing reductions, I looked to our neighbors for that "Bright Spot" and I found Long Beach.

Long Beach and Los Angeles compete for the same money and yet somehow Long Beach seems to come out ahead of LA. For example, LA and LB both submitted proposals to the Metro during the Call for Projects, asking for money to install bike racks on sidewalks throughout the respective cities. Both Long Beach and Los Angeles were awarded money but Long Beach's award exceeded LA's by a factor of 40 to 1 per capita.

The result is that Long Beach received money from the Metro's Call, paid their Public Works employees to install the bike racks, and went to work improving the quality of life in their community.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles took the smaller award, gave it to a contractor, decided that supervising the contract was too much work and suspended the program, citing the budget crisis as the cause.

Long Beach put their city employees to work with a well-funded program, Los Angeles churned paper and folded.

There are a couple of Bright Spots here that should serve as "Rays of Hope" as we look for long-term solutions to the budget crisis.

Long Beach filed ambitious requests for funding. The project is simple, the installation of inverted-U bike racks, but the request was comprehensive and it did three things; it put people to work, it served as a traffic congestion solution, and it contributed to a street revitalization program. With half a million residents, Long Beach has a population one eighth the size of LA but they asked for five times as much as Los Angeles (40 to 1 per capita) and they prevailed because they had the audacity to think big and to go to work. It took no more time or energy or paper to ask for the larger amount of money.

It took a simple commitment to actions that resonate.

A bike rack may not seem like a comprehensive solution to our budget crisis but if installing them puts people to work, if the money to pay people to install them is there for the asking, why aren't we putting in more bike racks?

Is it time to shift from a problem focus to a solution focus? is it time to look for flashes of success?

We can deliberate, we can pontificate, and we can negotiate but if we want to change course, it's important that we look for success stories and bright spots, then we must duplicate them.

(Stephen Box is a transportation and cycling advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - NC Leaders Prepare Plan to Save City Money, Restructure DONE (Video)

Wendy Greuel @ LANCC Feb. 6, 2010 - Complete + Q&A by Michael N Cohen.

CityWatch, Feb 9, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 11

This past Saturday, more than 60 neighborhood council representatives from around the city gathered at the LA Neighborhood Councils Coalition forum to hear City Controller Wendy Greuel and LA Police Protective League Director John Mumma offer their perspectives on LA’s budget crisis.

When the dust had cleared and the speakers were gone, Shawn Simons stepped up with an audacious proposal, one that offers to restructure the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE), move the NC funding program to an independent organization (Video) that services non-profits and community groups, and to deliver budget cuts in excess of the CAO’s recommendations.





All of this is in anticipation of Tuesday’s City Council session (10 a.m. at City Hall) when the CAO’s recommendation for the NC funding will be considered. On the City Council agenda is a proposal for the neighborhood council funding program that will the eliminate the “rollover” policy, transfer of all suspended “rollover” funds, eliminate of the bankcard system, revise the definition of allowable expenditure categories, and apply a 50% cut to annual neighborhood council funding. (LANCC Proposal )

After considerable deliberation, the LANNC participants acted with an overwhelming vote to advise the City Council:

1. LANCC wants the City Council to consider outsourcing the fiscal responsibilities of DONE to a non-profit, public service corporation (such as the California Community Foundation).

This is recommended because of DONE’s difficulties in creating and managing a satisfactory accounting system for the NCs. These difficulties are well known to NC Treasurers all across the City. They were documented in the Controller’s recent audit of the NCs.

2. LANCC wants the City Council to know that LANCC is developing a proposal for an alternate organization for DONE with much greater involvement of the NCs in the areas of Public Relations, Government Liaisons and Training (Education).

We heard and began development on such a program, one designed to save the City an additional $ 3.4 million for a total of $4.7 million in budget cuts.

3. In consideration of the above, LANCC will ask the City Council to send the C.F. #09-0600- S159 Items (9 – 10(e)), (9 – 18), (9 – 19), (9 – 20), (9 – 21) to the E&N Committee for further review and deliberation; deliberations which involve the NC Stakeholders in the process of devising, refining and presenting a more specific restructuring proposal.

INFO

• City Council Meeting-Tuesday (10 a.m.) at City Hall. Decisions on budget recommendations including cuts NC funding and DONE

LA's Best Bike Plan - The plan with a Backbone!

The Backbone Bikeway Network is a simple yet significant commitment to supporting cyclists and their fundamental need to travel to the same destinations that attract those using other modes of transportation. Cyclists travel across town from east to west, from north to south, and the Backbone simply establishes a basic framework of priority corridors and a strategy for supporting a cyclist's freedom to move. This is the foundation of LA's Best Bike Plan as articulated in the vision statement "Every street is a street that cyclists will ride."

The Backbone requires little, if any, funding in order to become a significant improvement over the status quo. The City of Los Angeles already provides many services that are key to making the Backbone the foundation for cross-town cycling, including law enforcement, routine maintenance, and prioritized repairs. Now is the time to focus them on the removal of obstacles so that the Backbone flows.

Imagine if the LAPD would use the Backbone Bikeways Network as a training tool to reinforce with the patrol officers that cyclists ride the streets, that they have the right to take the lanes, that they need to get to the same destinations as others and that they are a part of the traffic mix, not an exception. Couple this "learning opportunity" with enhanced law enforcement and speed limit enforcement and cyclists would enjoy an already funded but inconsistent public service, one that would contribute dramatically to the success of the Backbone.

Imagine if the Bureau of Street Services would give the Backbone priority maintenance, sweeping the curb lanes and keeping the gutters cleared, something that typically happens on secondary streets and side streets in residential areas but rarely on the larger cross-town routes. Just like in snow country, there should be a hierarchy of streets that receive maintenance attention. It would benefit all modes to put the focus on the Backbone, especially cyclists. Clean curb lanes allow a cyclist to ride a straight line because they don't need to dodge broken glass and debris. Cyclists will be able to give more attention to the traffic around them if they can spend less time watching for obstacles.

Imagine if the Bureau of Public Works gave the Backbone priority repairs, conducting street work and revitalization according to real priorities of traffic rather than political pressure. In Hollywood, we've got side streets getting resurfaced but the section of Santa Monica from the 101 Freeway to La Brea has a curb lane that is simply un-ridable. Wilshire Blvd. has a curblane that has cars and buses dodging asphalt drift and potholes which is unsafe for everybody. None of this is good for the efficient flow of traffic.

The real immediate impact of the Backbone Bikeway Network is that it provides the City of Los Angeles a focus point for the delivery of services and an opportunity to invest in "human infrastructure" instead of more cement. The significant value to be gained from the implementation of the Backbone Bikeway Network is the change in attitude, in philosophy, in actions and it starts with an investment in education, encouragement, and enforcement.

During conversations over the Backbone, many suggestions have come up about the different opportunities to implement engineering solutions ranging from the "floating bike paths" to the "K-Rail separation scheme" to simpler bike lane and sharrow solutions and that is a conversation that will take place over time. The solutions will result from a robust process and they remain to be seen.

For now, I recommend that the Backbone be established with great wayfinding that serves as a confirmation and as an "invitation to ride." Great cities such as Munich, Sydney and San Francisco have wayfinding signs that direct cyclists to the popular destinations and have simple distances and route identities labeled. The establishment of the Backbone and the supporting signage is the foundation of LA's commitment to connectivity and to supporting basic access and mobility.

As for additional enhancements, this is the time to position a commitment to "neighborhood pilot projects" as the next layer of Backbone effectiveness. Now is the time to get sensitive to the community and the local environment and to use this as an opportunity to engage the public in the development of innovations instead of tired template solutions.

I'm guessing that Alex has a different idea for Venice Blvd. than what Mihai might propose for Wilshire/Westwood. I'm certain that Ron will have a great solution for Santa Monica through Beverly Hills that will be nothing like Jeremy's ideas for Wilshire in K-Town. I know Enci has ideas for Hollywood, that Dan has plans for Sunset and that Mark can certainly make Vermont a better street to ride.

Regardless of what these folks come up with, we can rest assured that it will pale in comparison to what Josef has in store for Figueroa Avenue in Highland Park. The ideas and the solutions will vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and will address the many unique circumstances that occur throughout the LA area. But they all have one thing in common, the Backbone commitment to facilitating and supporting cyclists as they ride to same destinations as everybody else.

The Backbone foundation supported by "human infrastructure" allows us to position "neighborhood pilot projects" so that innovations with community support can be implemented, increasing through-put with speed moderation, limiting friction by enhancing curb lanes, calming traffic with road diets and traffic calming, enhancing capacity with speed management and synchronization, and enhancing connectivity with local communities by involving them in the process.

The League of American Bicyclists has a Bike Friendly America program that evaluates communities based on the "5 E's" which are Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Encouragement and Evaluation. Cities such as Portland and Boulder have achieved Platinum status, while San Francisco and Seattle have picked up Gold awards. In the LA area, Long Beach, Claremont, Santa Clarita and Santa Monica have all received slight nods from the League.

A couple of years ago, the Bike Writers Collective started pushing for the inclusion of Equality as the 6th E, a campaign that paralleled the efforts of Long Beach cycling advocate and CABO Director Dan Gutierrez who has been pushing for "Equality."

Imagine if we left the LAB behind and went beyond the "Bike Friendly" concept, instead using the Backbone Bikeway Network to lay down a LEED street program that went beyond the "6 E's," adding the Environment and the Economy as standards for performance. LEED standard streets would be vital connectors, not dividers, they would lose the "traffic sewer" status and instead became lifelines that enhanced the quality of life in a community instead of imposing a state of siege on a neighborhood.

LEED standard streets would have a positive impact on street life, on the reduction of crime, on the improvement of health, on revitalizing property values, and on the local economy. The benefits of a Backbone Bikeway Network go way beyond simply access for cyclists and is the foundation for a new approach to mobility.

The Backbone Bikeway Network is an important opportunity for the City of Los Angeles to embark on a journey of commitment, a journey of innovation, a journey of community building and it all starts on the streets of LA.

The change we want will take place because we ride, not because we want to ride or because we think about riding or because we plan to ride, it will take place because our actions will change the character of Los Angeles, and the development of that "human infrastructure" is of greater value than all of the cement and paint in the world.

As for me, I'll be riding the Backbone and I'll see you on the Streets!

CityWatchLA - Getting LA’s Priorities Straight - Sounds of Silence

Catherine MacKinnon (Actress/Producer)

CityWatch, Feb 5, 2010

Vol 8 Issue 10

Catherine MacKinnon visited LA's City Council twice this week, both times working her way through the standing-room-only crowd to take a seat in the second row and to participate in the review of the CAO's budget recommendations. Once seated, she didn't look at the Councilmembers much and she didn't hear a single word they said.

She can't. She's deaf. Catherine sat for hours, focused on the team of sign language interpreters who took turns translating the proceedings for the deaf members of the audience. The pace was so fast that the interpreters worked like a tag team and were still both mentally and physically exhausted. Like lots of other members of the public, Catherine was there to protect jobs, and in Catherine's case, it included the jobs of the people who were translating for her.

Catherine was there to oppose the CAO's recommendation to "Eliminate the Department of Disability."

She was also there to fight for the Cultural Affairs Department and when her turn came to stand before the City Council to argue her case, she stood silently but signing feverishly as an interpreter spoke on her behalf.

She argued passionately as a deaf actor/producer, contending that the CAO's recommendations would have a negative impact on the many members of the artistic community who revitalize communities and contribute to the economy. She argued in favor of a commitment to access as a basic human right. She argued that a commitment to the arts is essential to a healthy community.

By way of example, the NoHo Arts District has benefited dramatically from the contributions of the artistic community and is now a destination community featuring great transit, city-center development, and lots of great entertainment opportunities including the Deaf West Theatre.

In a City that has abundant theaters, all competing for an audience, the Deaf West Theatre has quite a following. In fact it has a huge audience.



American Sign Language is the third most common language in the United States, surpassed only by English and Spanish. It's estimated that the deaf and hard of hearing population in the Los Angeles area exceeds one million people.

Catherine, like many others, depends on the Department of Disability in order to gain access the full Los Angeles experience which includes the many opportunities to share her gifts with the theatre community and the film industry. She also stands with the many artists who depend on the city's funding for the Department of Cultural Affairs.

For 20 years, the City of LA has collected $1 in taxes per $100 of hotel room charges for the Department of Cultural Affairs, an amount that is the best part of their entire $9.6 million budget. This past week, City Council President and five other council members made a written motion to repeal the guaranteed arts funding.

It took a Budget & Finance Committee meeting that went until after midnight on Monday followed by two long and focused City Council sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday to get to the moment of reckoning.

CAO Miguel Santana argued that the City Council must act decisively to avert financial disaster while Councilman Jose Huizar countered that the CAO's proposal amounted to a $15 million plan to close a $200 million gap.

When the dust had cleared, Catherine had cause to celebrate, twice.

The City Council gave the Department of Disability a reprieve and then voted unanimously to maintain the guaranteed arts funding for the Department of Cultural Affairs.

As the City Council regroups and puts their focus on increasing revenue and as the Department managers work on efficiency and reducing costs, it is imperative that the people of Los Angeles consider the core priorities of a Great City and communicate clearly to the Mayor and the City Council on the city services that are essential.

LA's character demands that we embrace and support the rich diversity and abundant creativity that makes us a destination for everybody from tourists to those who seek the land of opportunity and promise. It's now, more than ever, that we need to work together to solve our budget problems and the process must not start with the exclusion of any group of people. Everybody must have access to the process and that is a commitment that LA must not break.

If Los Angeles is to take its place as a Great City, it will be … at the very least in part … because of the work of the Department of Disability and because of the work of the Cultural Affairs Department.

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

CityWatchLA - Rosendahl: “The Culture of the Car Ends Now!”

CityWatch, Jan 29, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 8

Declaring "The culture of the car ends now!" City Councilman Bill Rosendahl invoked the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and took a giant leap at pursuing a city ordinance that would prohibit the harassment of cyclists. He drew applause from council chambers as he articulated several examples of the behavior that he wants to forbid on the streets of Los Angeles.

1. Knowingly throwing a projectile or discharge at or in the direction of any person riding a bicycle;
2. Threatening any person riding a bicycle verbally or by use of his/her vehicle for the purpose of injuring, frightening or disturbing the person riding the bicycle;
3. Knowingly placing his/her vehicle within 3’ of a bicyclist while passing or following;
4. Making physical contact with a bicyclist from a moving vehicle or the roadway either by physical person or use of an implement;
5. Knowingly placing a person riding a bicycle in concern of immediate physical injury;
6. Knowingly engaging in conduct that creates a risk of physical injury or death to the person riding a bicycle.

As cyclists offered testimony of their experience riding the streets of Los Angeles, they were echoed in their concerns by members of the City Council who agreed that the City needs to do more to support the cycling community.

Councilman Ed Reyes recounted his experience as a child getting hit by a motorist as he rode his bike.

Councilman Rosendahl reminded the council of the Mandeville Canyon Road-Rage incident that brought the issue of harassment of cyclists to the forefront.

Councilman Paul Koretz stood in support and declared "We need to send a clear message."

Rosendahl brought it home saying “We’re going to give cyclists the support they should have been getting.”

It seems simple, after all, who can stand in favor of harassment of any kind, but the devil is in the details.

The proposed "anti-harassment" motion, which simply directs the generation of reports on the development of an ordinance has made it through the Transportation Committee but hit a speed hump at the Public Safety Committee which recommended further study. The City Council voted to essentially direct the City Attorney and the LADOT to continue with the generation of reports.

As cyclists recounted their experiences turning to the LAPD for assistance when they experienced road-rage, aggression from motorists, threats, assaults and even hit-and-run collisions, Rosendahl responded by saying "The LAPD hasn't been part of the solution, but sometimes has been part of the problem." The LAPD had no response, they weren't there. Somehow the LAPD and the District Attorney were left out of the process, leaving the LADOT as the lead and the City Attorney deferring in the development of an anti-harassment ordinance that requires enforcement and prosecution support. Some might even suggest that it requires support from Sacramento.

The real value of this ordinance lies not in its chances of becoming law but in the fact that the harassment of cyclists is being discussed, prompting some to murmur "This is how it starts!"

Complementing the City Council's slow but steady pursuit of a more bikeable Los Angeles was the City's ongoing study of Bike Sharing, an endeavor that prompted Council President Eric Garcetti to refer to great bikeable cities such as East Hollywood, Paris and Long Beach. (Not often that those three are mentioned in the same breath!)

The bike sharing concept is an old one even in Los Angeles where college students can "rent" a bike for the quarter, studio employees can "share" a bike while on the lot, tourists can "borrow" a bike from some hotels, and bikes "for hire" exist in several locations.

None of these are as visible as the programs in Paris or Munich or Leon but perhaps that's the real opportunity for the City of LA, to support those small operators who are already in the bike share business with promotion and marketing support.
•••
Capping off the "anything but the budget" day at City Hall was the Transportation Committee's showdown over the speed limit increases in the Valley. On the agenda were proposals to raise the speed limit on Riverside Drive (up to 45 mph) and Chandler Avenue (up to 50 mph) in an effort to certify the streets for radar/laser speed limit violation enforcement.

Cyclists were joined by members of the community, all braced with arguments against the City of LA's continued pursuit of increased speed limits as a tool for enforcement, but the debate faded at the request of Councilman Krekorian who wanted to pursue other options, such as his AB 766 Safe Streets bill which he introduced last year when he served as the Assistant Majority Leader in the State Assembly.

The bill did not make it to the finish line but the message was clear, the 50 year old speed trap law needed to be revised so that local authorities can set speed limits with greater sensitivity to the local community. Not all streets should be raceways, not all streets should be fast cut-throughs, not all streets should be hospitable for speeding motorists.

Councilmembers Krekorian and Koretz both asked the hard questions and seem to understand that there are methods for slowing traffic other than simply raising the speed limits and then relying on traffic officers with radar/laser enforcement.

Now is the time to pursue traffic calming methods, many of which represent funding opportunities such as Safe Routes to School, Highway Safety Improvement Program funding and Office of Traffic Safety grants.

Road diets, bulb-outs, speed tables, pedestrian enhancements and other innovations are not just tools for safety, they are also opportunities to put people to work, to improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods and to bring funding into the city coffers.

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

NCs Continue Emergency Meetings on LA’s Financial Crisis; Expert on Pension Funding Featured Saturday

CityWatch, Jan 29, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 8

BudgetLA … the neighborhood council effort to ensure themselves a voice in the solutions dialogue … meets again this Saturday, January 30, at 10 a.m. - noon with Neighborhood Council representatives and Community leaders coming together to meet with the experts in a focused session that is designed to educate, to empower, and to continue delivering budget recommendations that come from a community-based commitment to working toward immediate, short-term and long-term solutions to LA's budget crisis. Open to all NCs and community leaders. (See BudgetLA NC leaders media conference and appearance at Monday’s City Council Budget Committee meeting.)



The "Budget Crisis - Next Steps #2" session will focus on answering the question ""Is Pension Reform the solution to LA's Budget Crisis?" and features Alexander Rubalcava, a recognized and respected expert on pension funding and venture capital investments. Rubalcava is the President and Founder of Rubalcava Capital Management.

This session is the follow-up to the powerful Budget Advisory Committee session that generated 15 "pension reform" actions that were presented to the City Council's Budget and Finance Committee this past Saturday at the Van Nuys City Hall.

It will include breakout sessions to provide attendees the opportunity to grapple with the issues and to work on specific recommendations, all of which will be integrated in the second round of community recommendations that the BudgetLA community will present to the neighborhood councils for endorsement and for implementation.

To that end, NC leaders will be conducting short presentations on how neighborhood councils can best evaluate the city's budget, how to best use Board resolutions, how to file Community Impact Statements that resonate, and how they can mobilize the community to engage the Mayor and the City Council.

The fundamental position of the BudgetLA movement is that "everything is on the table and must be considered as we work together to solve the budget crisis and that neighborhood councils and community groups must be at that table as partners in the process."

BudgetLA will be meeting three times in the upcoming days, starting with Saturday, January 30 at 10 a.m., then Saturday, February 13 at 10 am, then again on Saturday, February 27 at 10 am. All meetings will take place at the Hollywood City Hall, 6501 Fountain Ave., Hollywood 90028.

LA's Budget Crisis is of such epic proportions that City Council President Eric Garcetti has announced that beginning next week, the Council would devote two of their three meetings each week to the budget crisis and job creation.

The NC reps have taken a full-spectrum approach to the budget crisis and believe that it is essential that the community engage with our elected officials as well as city staff to pursue Revenue innovations along with Pension reform while maintaining prioritized delivery of City Services and the implementation of Organizational improvements, all of which work together to guarantee that Los Angeles take its place as a Great City.

Further opportunities for participation: The City Council's Budget and Finance Committee has committed to holding four community budget meetings around the city in preparation of the 2010-2011 Budget. The first meeting took place this past Monday and the next meeting is on Monday, February 22nd at 6:00 pm at Hamilton High School, 955 South Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles 90034.

(Stephen Box is a community advocate and an Internet communications expert. He writes for CityWatch and can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net)

CityWatchLA - City Hall Rock Stars and NCs have Priorities Screwed Up

CityWatch, Jan 26, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 7

Neighborhood Councils have a charming tradition of deference at their meetings that allows elected officials, their representatives, and city staff to move to the front of the agenda for their comments and presentations. After all, "They're very busy, with places to go, with things to do, with many responsibilities!"

As for the riff-raff, the stakeholders who simply volunteer their time and talent and energy to improving the quality of life in their communities, apparently our existence is of lesser value in the grand scale of things, and typically the people who most need to hear what we have to say are long gone by the time we get to speak.

Along comes the City of LA's Budget crisis, a financial emergency of epic proportions, and the handwriting is on the wall: "The City of Los Angeles must act decisively, it must act effectively, and it must act quickly if it is to survive the current financial crisis. This means a real evaluation of LA's Bankruptcy options, a real review of LA's Pension scheme, and a real analysis to LA's commitment to the delivery of services and a systemic reorganization that ensures that LA has a future as a Great City."

It should also mean that all neighborhood council meetings start off with "The Budget" as the first item on the agenda, after all, advising the Mayor and City Council on the City Budget is one of the neighborhood council's most basic responsibilities.

In many cases, neighborhood councils have risen to the occasion, most recently when reps from over 40 councils gathered for a one-topic session where they took on the City Budget and confronted the possibility of bankruptcy, the significant impact of LA's pension obligations, and the impending threat to the continued delivery of services to the people of Los Angeles.

In that meeting it became apparent that the Budget Crisis demanded more study but the reps voted to start by taking a stand in opposition to the sale of revenue producing capital assets (specifically LA's parking meters and parking structures) as a short-term revenue gap solution.

It was hoped that the reps in attendance would take the proposed motion to the community and come back with support. In some cases, such as Sunland Tujunga and Greater Wilshire, motions were passed within days, but that was the exception, not the rule.

The Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils (VANC) met four days after the "Emergency Budget Meeting" and on the agenda was a discussion of LA's Budget Crisis and a motion to "stand in opposition to the sale of revenue producing capital assets (specifically LA's parking meters and parking structures) as a short-term revenue gap solution."

Wendy Greuel, the City Controller of Los Angeles, the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world, showed up and became the dominant player in a passionate and emotional discussion of her recent audit of the neighborhood council funding system.

This discussion became the substance of the evening and the subject of LA's Budget Crisis was simply overshadowed by Greuel's presentation of her audit.

In her cover letter introducing the audit, Greuel says:

"At the request of DONE, my office recently conducted an audit which examined how the department oversees neighborhood council expenditures,” Greuel wrote. “The findings showed that, while engagement and activism have grown, there has been a systematic failure of accounting and fiscal oversight of the neighborhood councils by DONE.”

Somehow our elected officials have become the equivalent of "local royalty" and an appearance by Wendy or Eric or Tony is certain to draw a crowd, a deferential crowd that is pleased to share an evening of scripted and managed political "handling," steering clear of information and controversy and accountability and responsibility. This takes place because we allow it to take place. It's our fault for allowing it to happen and it needs to change.

Most importantly, our elected officials need to get their priorities straight and if LA's City Controller thinks that an audit of neighborhood council funding is of greater importance than LA's Budget Crisis, then the City of LA is in big trouble. Of course, we already knew that and the evidence supports our conclusion.

Imagine if VANC had waited until Greuel showed up and then engaged in a discussion of LA's budget crisis and a call to action on the proposed motion. Imagine if that discussion and proposal had taken place with the participation of LA's City Controller. That would have been a powerful experience and an informed process and a dramatic opportunity to take action and to immediately put it in the hands of the City Controller.

The next day, City Controller Wendy Greuel could have released a letter saying "At the request of VANC, my office is conducting an audit which will examine how the City of Los Angeles oversees its budget. The findings will show how we got into this Budget Crisis and will lay down specific recommendations for addressing the threat of Bankruptcy, for confronting the Pension crisis, for ensuring the delivery of services to the people of Los Angeles and for reorganizing the City of Los Angeles so that we can function in the style worthy of a Great City!"

But that didn't happen. Instead, Greuel engaged in a robust discussion that included the intricacies and complexities of providing sandwiches for a neighborhood council meeting and the importance of getting a good sign-in sheet so that the number of sandwiches can be matched to the number of attendees. No mention was made of a policy on "seconds" or on "extra cheese" requests. Whew! This LA City Controller business must be exhausting stuff!

The City Charter says very specifically, in Sec. 909., "Annual City Budget Priorities." Each neighborhood council may present to the Mayor and Council an annual list of priorities."

This is a very good time for the neighborhood councils of Los Angeles to seize this opportunity and to get busy preparing this list of priorities.

Now is the time to offer advice on REVENUE to ask the hard questions such as "Why do the cities surrounding Los Angeles come home with higher per-capita transportation and safety and stimulus funding? Is Los Angeles looking outside Los Angeles for an increase in revenue or is it simply looking for more resident pockets to pick?

Now is the time to offer advice on BANKRUPTCY and to ask the hard questions such as "Is it possible?" and "Is it an opportunity to improve our position or would it have a negative impact?" and "What is the timeline for a decision and an action or is it simply something that happens to us rather than with us?"

Now is the time to offer advice on LA's PENSION obligations and to ask the hard questions such as "Can LA's budget be balanced under the current obligations?" and "Can the current pension obligations be renegotiated?" and "Is the City of Los Angeles obligated to continue with current commitments or are there other options?"

Now is the time to offer advice on the DELIVERY OF SERVICES and to ask the hard questions such as "Can the budget be balanced by reducing the delivery of services and if not, why is it the priority discussion?" and "Are there existing department priorities and objectives and how can the community participate in them?" and "Are city departments evaluated and held responsible according to their objectives, their priorities and their performance?"

The City Charter also says, again very specifically, in Sec. 910, "Monitoring of City Services." Neighborhood councils shall monitor the delivery of City services in their respective areas and have periodic meetings with responsible officials of City departments, subject to their reasonable availability."

Good Advice and Honest Communication fall under the category of "City Services" and the neighborhood councils need to meet with the people who have the information that we need if we are to work together to navigate this LA's Budget Crisis.

Neighborhood councils must meet with Miguel Santana. Neighborhood councils must meet with Sally Choi. Neighborhood councils must have real conversations with the people who are in charge and with the people who are advising them.

I want the people who occupy elected positions, their representative, and the people who work for the City of Los Angeles to move to the back of the agenda and I want them to sit through the meeting, I want them to listen to the stakeholders discuss the "delivery of services" in their community and I want them to come to our neighborhood meetings prepared to engage the public and to inform and advise us on LA's Budget Crisis and I want them to work with us so that the neighborhood councils can advise the Mayor and Council on the City budget. I want us to work together.

And yet, has one neighborhood council presented a "list of priorities for the City budget?"

Years ago, 56% of the neighborhood councils responded to the Mayor with their priorities for the City budget but as of last count, the number of councils who have taken an official position on the City budget and submitted it to the Mayor and the City Council is reported by the Mayor's office to be "zero." Perhaps they are wrong, it would be great to hear from the neighborhood council(s) that have reviewed the budget and agendized and discussed and taken a formal position on the budget priorities and delivered it to the Mayor and the City Council. Until then, the count is zero.

Perhaps it's time to look for the people who aren't involved in city politics and to engage the experts who surround us.

Dr. Donald Shoup of UCLA is currently in New York City presenting his "High Cost of Free Parking" book to an audience that refers to him as a "Parking Rock Star" and who go standing-room-only to get his advice. How about Los Angeles?

Allison Yoh, also of UCLA and formerly of the Metro Board, was on the Rand Corp team that developed "Moving Los Angeles: Short-Term Policy Options for Improving Transportation" which included many traffic congestion relief proposals that are also revenue generators. Why isn't Los Angeles looking to the transportation and funding "Rock Stars" for advice?


Surely there are additional "Rock Stars" out there who can offer counsel and advice to the City of Los Angeles and who can help us navigate the treacherous journey ahead. Who knows, they might even already be involved in the neighborhood council system. Of course, our elected officials will have to stay for the entire meeting if they want to hear from them.

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

CityWatchLA - LADOT Puts the Pedal to the Metal on Speed Limits Increases

CityWatch, Jan 26, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 7

As the City of Los Angeles grapples with a financial crisis of epic proportions and the Departments within the city struggle with the triage that results from the impending induced exodus of approximately 3000 employees, the Department of Transportation gallantly marches forward, continuing the good work of raising speed limits and removing crosswalks, all in an effort to make our streets safer and more effective for motorists. It's been a while since the last flurry of speed limit increases made their way through the City Hall meat grinder that regularly sees speed limit increase proposals head from the Department of Transportation to the LAPD to the local Councilmembers to the City Attorney to the Transportation Commission to the Transportation Committee and then to the City Council where the rubber stamping concludes with an ordinance proposal that raises the speed limit on a local street, all in an effort to maintain the right to use radar/laser speed limit violation enforcement on the streets of Los Angeles.

On Wednesday the City Council's Transportation Committee will consider speed limit increase proposals on Riverside Drive (up to 40 mph) and on Chandler Boulevard (up to 45 mph.)

These speed limit increase proposals are for streets that fall partially in Council District 2, newly minted City Councilman Paul Krekorian's district. Krekorian is the author of AB766, the Safe Streets bill that he took to the State Assembly last year when he served as Assemblyman for the 43rd District and in his role as the Assistant Majority Floor Leader for the State Assembly. Krekorian's Safe Streets bill saw the support of both Glendale and Burbank and also enjoyed the support of local community members, neighborhood councils and the cycling community.

Essentially, Krekorian argued that local communities should have more authority over the establishment of speed limits.

The City of Los Angeles gave quiet support to the Safe Streets Bill but when it came up in the State Assembly's Transportation Committee, the City of LA's LADOT representative in the room sat silent, as did the City of LA's legislative representative.

Their silence spoke volumes and served as a powerful contradiction to the LA City Council resolution passed in support of AB766.

As for the upcoming speed limit increase proposals, one of them is for a street that runs alongside the bike lanes that are part of the beginning of the Orange Line, a cycling commuter route from the Red Line station in NoHo that runs across the valley.

One would think that a major transit hub would be a great place to encourage alternative modes of transportation. But such is not the case.

The streets get wider, the speeds get faster, the environment gets more hospitable for motor vehicles and downright hostile for anybody who dares to walk, ride a bike or take mass transit.

As for the Transportation Committee, Chairman Bill Rosendahl has an opportunity to demonstrate that his stated commitment to making Los Angeles a more walkable and bikeable city is a real commitment that comes with action, not just talk.

It'll also be interesting to see what influence Councilman Paul Koretz of CD5 will have over the process, especially in light of his stated support for a robust Bike Plan that lays down a real vision for a bikeable city.

Will Koretz suggest that the Bike Plan be consulted and used as a guide for evaluating speed limits and street designations?

Inevitably, when the subject of speed limit increases come up, somebody launches into a long discussion of California Vehicle Code Section 40802(b) and the need to raise speed limits in order to justify enforcement of the speed limit by radar.

This tired monologue concludes with the explanation "Our hands are tied, we've got to raise the speed limits if we want to enforce the speed limit!"

I don't know when the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world rolled over and became so helpless but I'm not buying it. I believe that there are many things Los Angeles could be doing to control speeding motorists and to making our streets safer for everybody.

It's at this point in the repetitious debate over speed limits that I'm challenged to offer other solutions. I typically start by saying "Bulb-outs, speed tables and road diets!" and the resulting confused look on the faces of those I'm talking with tells me that the transportation experts who are in charge of our streets have one tool in the toolbox and it is 50 years old.

Our City is in the middle of a budget crisis. Why don't we put this energy into pursuing funding sources that would allow us to improve the quality of life on our streets, that would allow us to put people to work, that would allow us to work together to make Los Angeles a walkable, rideable, livable city that works for everybody. It's time to put down the old paradigm and to work together to make people a priority.

On Wednesday, tune in to City Phone at 2:00 pm (213-621-2489) and listen along to see if Transportation Chair Bill Rosendahl will take the lead in rejecting the proposed speed limits and if Councilman Paul Koretz will support him.

Councilman Richard Alarcon has already voiced his support for Krekorian's Safe Streets bill so it will be interesting to see if that translates into a "no" vote on the proposed speed limit increase.

Maybe Krekorian will show up to argue for Safe Streets.

Who knows, the LAPD might even show up to explain how public safety is one of their basic commitments and how increasing speed limits doesn't increase safety or save lives.

"See you on the Streets!"

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

CityWatchLA - Westwood NC Certified: Becomes LA’s 90th

CityWatch, Jan 22, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 6

When the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners convenes a neighborhood council certification hearing and hundreds of passionate community leaders show up in a standing room only crowd, there is only one course of action and that is to certify the NC and to give them the full support of the city family.

It took five and half hours of presentations, debate and public comment but in the end the Commission agreed, voting unanimously to certify the Westwood Neighborhood Council, making them the 90th active neighborhood council in the city of Los Angeles.



The evening wasn't without controversy and the opponents to the certification were vocal, well-organized, articulate and well-reasoned. But for all of the debate over procedural errors, organizational missteps, and outreach shortcomings, the one simple point they couldn't drive home was why the naysayers had the right to prevent community stakeholders from organizing a neighborhood council and volunteering their time to improve the quality of life in their community.

Ultimately, the simple right to be represented in the neighborhood council system held firm and the applicants prevailed.

Councilman Koretz kicked the proceedings off (Video) by stating that he supports neighborhood councils but then proceeded to qualify that support by calling for community consensus as the necessary foundation for a newly formed neighborhood council.

He referred to the significant polarization in the community as evidence that they weren't ready for a certified neighborhood council, arguing that mediation was required and that the formation of the WWNC should be the conclusion of the consensus building process.

I disagreed and argued that the formation of the Westwood Neighborhood Council is the appropriate beginning of the journey, not the end, and that the process of involving the community, of engaging the many voices and the different perspectives is best facilitated within the structure of a neighborhood council, not as a prerequisite for formation. Apparently BONC agreed.



The idea that civic engagement is dependent on consensus is a flawed paradigm for public participation and denies the true value to be found in spirited discourse in the open marketplace of ideas.

If nothing else, the neighborhood council system is to be credited with stirring period debates over the tyranny of the majority vs. the veto power of the minority.

The public wins in discussions that educate, engage, and ultimately empower the community and it was refreshing to see hundreds of people engaged in a debate over their right to volunteer their time, to organize, and to work together to improve the quality of life in their community.

Speaking in support of the Westwood NC were community leaders from all over the city, demonstrating that as much as each community is unique, they all have a lot in common including the need to work together in order to truly represent the people of Los Angeles.

To this end, seasoned veterans of the NC system from Sunland Tujunga to Coastal San Pedro offered their support as mentors to the Westwood Neighborhood Council.

The Board of Neighborhood Commissioners are to be credited for their stamina and their wisdom and especially for creating an environment that played host to passionate emotions, enthusiastic opinions, and spirited debate.

Board President Michele Siqueiros raised the bar on effective public hearings and proved that, in spite of a lack of consensus, the community can come together and take care of business fairly, diplomatically and effectively.

(Stephen Box is a well known and long-time grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net )

Double Standards for Law Enforcement in Beverly Hills

If the Police Department came across somebody lying on the street with a gunshot wound, they would immediately secure the area as a potential crime scene, they would collect evidence and they would look for the person responsible for the crime. If a witness came forward and said "He went that way." they would pursue. If they found somebody holding a gun, they would detain the person and even protect the person's hands in order to examine for evidence of recent gunfire. The gun would be collected as evidence and tests would be run to determine if the bullet in the victim came from the gun and if so, the person holding the gun would be hard pressed to prove that they were not responsible for the gunshot victim's injuries.

Yet, if the Police Department came across a cyclist lying on the street with injuries that indicate some form of collision, they would look around at the debris, the skid marks, the damage to the bike and they would have the victim transported to the hospital while they filled out hit-and-run paperwork. If a witness came forward and said "He went that way." they would ask for a description of the vehicle and they would make a note on the report. If they found the vehicle that was involved in the hit-and-run collision, they would ask the owner if they knew anything about the hit-and-run collision and if the owner of the vehicle said "no!" they would leave the motor vehicle and the owner behind and return to the witness and the victim.

In the first scenario, they would confiscate the gun as a weapon, as evidence, as a clue that would be used to determine the identity of the criminal responsible for the crime.

In the second scenario, they would allow the owner of the vehicle to maintain possession of the weapon, they would accept the owner's denial of responsibility and they would file a report.

Imagine if the owner of the gun said "I put my gun on the coffee table, I went to sleep, and when I awoke, the gun was gone. I later found the gun and was holding it when the police approached but I am not responsible for the crime that took place. I know nothing." The Police Department would not allow the entire case to hinge on the victim's ability to identify the shooter. There would be other evidence that could be collected. The gun, the plausibility of the gun owner's story, the gun owner's record, the gun owner's alibi, etc.

Yet when a motorist's car is involved in a hit-and-run crime, invariably the case rests on the ability of the witness and/or victim to identify the person responsible for the crime.

Why is the vehicle (weapon) not collected as evidence of a crime? Why is the owner of the vehicle (weapon) not investigated and obligated to offer a plausible and verifiable explanation for who was operating the vehicle (weapon) when the crime was committed? Why isn't the owner of the motor vehicle (weapon) not responsible for offering an alibi that would confirm that the vehicle (weapon) owner could not have been behind the wheel? Why is the owner of the vehicle (weapon) not responsible for producing cell phone records and text message records that would indicate location and journey and intentions and serve as evidence that could be used to analyze the truthfulness of the vehicle (weapon) owner's story.

The simple answer is this:

If you use a gun to kill somebody, you're a criminal. If you use a motor vehicle to kill somebody, you're traffic. That standard must change.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that four times as many people die from motor vehicle collisions than from war and conflict.

In Beverly Hills, hardly a war zone but definitely the location for conflict, a cyclist was recently hit by a motorist and knocked to the ground. (early December '09) It was a hit-and-run crime. A witness in another vehicle chased the motorist and returned with the license plate information which was presented to the Beverly Hills Police Department. The BHPD investigated the incident, taking the post-it with the license plate information from the victim, never to return it, going so far as to say they couldn't release the license information or the vehicle owner's information to the victim. The post-it and the license information were in the victim's possession until the Beverly Hills Police Department collected it for their report.

Five weeks after the hit-and-run crime, the Beverly Hills Police Department invited the victim to the police station to identify the suspected hit-and-run criminal. The victim looked at photos of six people and he indicated that they "all looked similar."

Since the victim was busy getting knocked to the ground and then was busy trying to deal with the shock and the fact that his bike was under the motorist's car and that the motorist then backed up and took off, all as he dragged himself and the bike to the curb, it makes sense that he didn't get a good look at the motorist, a look that would linger in his consciousness for five weeks waiting for the opportunity to identify the perpetrator of the crime from a half dozen lookalikes. On top of that, who looks like their photos?

But the police had the license plate and they had a witness and they had two merchants who saw the vehicle back up and drive away leaving the victim on the street.

What the Beverly Hills Police Department doesn't have is the moral conviction that when a person hits another human with a motor vehicle and then leaves them lying in the street, that a serious crime has been committed, that a weapon has been used in a violent assault on another human being, one that warrants a full investigation and that treats the incident as a crime, a real crime with a real victim and a real criminal.

The Cyclists' Bill of Rights states "Cyclists have the right to the full support of our judicial system and the right to expect that those who endanger, injure or kill cyclists be dealt with to the full extent of the law."

The Beverly Hills Police Department has failed the victim in this incident and in doing so, they have failed the community as a whole.

For more information on the Cyclists' Bill of Rights visit http://BikeWritersCollective.com

To contact the Beverly Hills City Manager, Jeff Kolin, call 310-285-1012

To contact the Beverly Hills Police Chief, David L. Snowden, call 310-285-2100 or 310-285-2125

To visit the City Council, consider riding as a group on Tuesday February 16, 2010 to the 7:00 pm City Council meeting.

"See you on the Streets!"

LAPD Chief Bonding with LA’s Cyclists

Photo courtesy by Eric Richardson
CityWatch, Jan 19, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 5

LAPD's Charlie Beck, barely into his third month as Chief, is off to a great start in his promise to forge a strong working relationship with the cycling community. Shortly after his nomination he was working the neighborhood council circuit, introducing himself to community leaders and promising to make "good policing and civil rights" the foundation of his LAPD legacy. It was at the Citywide Alliance of NCs that he was presented with the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and a challenge to put his leadership team to work making Los Angeles a great place for cyclists to ride.

Since then, Commander David Doan and his team have formed the Cyclists/LAPD Task Force which met in a marathon session to initiate a comprehensive survey of the cycling conditions from all perspectives, not just from the patrol car.

Representatives from the Bike Writers Collective, illuminateLA, Sustainable Streets, Bikeside, the Bike Working Group, the Voice, and the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee were all present and offered up insight from different perspectives, all united in a desire to see the LAPD embrace cycling as a transportation solution, not simply as interruption in the smooth flow of motor vehicle traffic.

Cmdr. Doan convened the meeting saying "The LAPD is committed to making our roadways safer for all commuters with an emphasis on our most vulnerable commuters, cyclists. We are committed to working with the cycling community to improve police cyclist interactions and to find ways to make our streets safer for everyone."

As the City of Los Angeles wallows in the midst of a budget crisis of unprecedented proportions, one might wonder why the LAPD would put valuable resources on such a niche constituent group but this is exactly the model for community policing that is essential, not just as a public safety solution but as an example of how community leaders can partner with city leadership to make the most of our valuable resources.

A strong working relationship with the cycling community allows the LAPD to draw on the insight and experience of cyclists who experience the gritty details of the streets of LA up close and personal. Something the LAPD won't experience from a patrol car that is racing from one high priority call to the next.

As for the cycling community, the issues that were presented included:

1) Education - It is imperative that we work together to educate the LAPD officers who patrol the streets and the City Family as a whole on the rights of cyclists on streets of Los Angeles. Last year a DWP contractor ran over and killed a cyclist in the crosswalk of a quiet residential street in the Valley.

Last year a LADOT contractor ran over and killed a pedestrian in the crosswalk of 5th and Flower. There's no doubt that our streets are congested and contested, but it is imperative that we move past debates over rights and into a campaign to make our streets safer.

2) Cyclists Count - It is important that the LAPD has good accident data so that the allocation of resources can be most effective yet cyclists are uncounted as a user group, uncounted in accident surveys and uncounted in crime reports.

In spite of the forms that are used on the streets, the databases that collect the information don't capture the cyclist as a unique travel mode. The result is that simple questions of public safety, conflict hot spots, areas that need additional enforcement and simple reviews of performance are unanswerable because, at present, cyclists don't count.

3) Crime Scenes - When a motorist "asserts" himself against a cyclist, it is not a simple traffic violation or traffic collision, it is a crime. Crimes against cyclists need to be treated as real crimes, not as simple infractions that are simply part of everyday traffic in Los Angeles. A hit-and-run motorist that leaves a cyclist behind needs to be pursued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The recent Mandeville Canyon road rage incident that resulted in several felony convictions for Dr. Christopher Thompson wasn't the first reported incident for the Dr., it was the third, and it wasn't investigated as a crime until it got political. That must change!

4) Civil Rights - Cyclists riding alone and late at night sometimes find themselves in handcuffs while the LAPD checks their information. LAPD officers report that this "immobilization" is simply for the safety of the officers but critics call it "bias based policing" or "profiling" and that riding a bike should not be a cue for handcuffs.

The cyclists who stand the greater chance of ending up in cuffs are the "workforce" cyclists who ride for economic reasons, may not have lights and who may ride on the sidewalks late at night. The opportunity here would be to have the LAPD pass out blinkies and a copy of the Cyclists' Rules of the Road rather than to assume that late-night cyclists are "capering."

5) Bike Safety - Cycling advocates hold that in spite of all the well-intentioned advice for cyclists, real public safety on the streets of Los Angeles starts with a focus on Motor Vehicle Safety.

Motorists will cause approximately 40,000 deaths this year in the United States. It's no secret that our streets are filled with high-performance vehicles operated by low-performance motorists. The distractions are many and GPS units, cell phones, entertainment equipment, in-car dining, behind-the-wheel grooming, road rage, speeding and simple contempt for others on the road all contribute to an unsafe environment. The place to start is with the operator that is able to do the most damage, the motorist.

6) Road Rage - Cyclists talk of their journeys on the streets of Los Angeles as if they were campaigns in a war-torn third world country. Motorists who race up from behind, lay on the horn and threaten death turn out to be soccer moms. Bus Operators "asserting" themselves across bike lanes, vehicle passengers who throw things, "right-hooks" and "left-hooks" and "doorings" all add up to a simple journey across town.

Through it all is the common thread, simple road rage. Yet reporting these incidents to the LAPD reveals that we don't have strong investigation or enforcement policies in place. That has to change!

7) Hot Spots - Cyclists are just like anybody else on the road, they expect to make safe and effective progress toward destinations that include homes, places of employment, schools, cultural and social destinations, shops and parks. Cyclists also recognize that route selection is an essential element of safe and effective cycling. There is a real opportunity for the cycling community and the LAPD to work together to identify "hot spots" that could use enhanced LAPD patrols and enforcement, perhaps even LAPD Bike Stings.

8) Bicycle Network - The LA Bike Working Group (BWG) is developing "LA's Best Bike Plan" and a key element is the Backbone Network, a series of streets that stretch from Downtown to the Westside, from Downtown to the Harbor, from East to West across the Valley and from Downtown to the Eastside. In other words, a Backbone Network that connects the city of Los Angeles and really gets cyclists from one side to the other.

The current LADOT inspired bikeways network consists of bits and pieces of bikeway scattered "where it fits" instead of "where it's needed." LA's Best Bike Plan is the Bike Plan with a Backbone and it doesn't require millions of dollars in infrastructure funding to put an enforcement and maintenance focus on the streets that are vital to cyclists who simply want to get across town safely and effectively.

9) Speed Limits - Last year the LADOT peppered the Transportation Commission and the Transportation Committee with speed limit increase proposals throughout the city. While surrounding communities such as Glendale and Burbank supported then-Assemblyman (now Councilman) Krekorian's AB766 "Safe Streets" bill that would allow local communities to have more control over the establishment of speed limits, the LAPD lobbied neighborhood councils, the Commission and the Transportation Committee in support of speed limit increases.

All this was in an effort to maintain speed limit surveys that would allow the LAPD to continue to use radar/laser speed limit violation enforcement. The times are changing and we should work together to change the speed trap law. We should also work together to implement traffic calming techniques such as speed tables, bulb-outs and road diets, all of which slow traffic without requiring the presence of a law enforcement officer.

10) Training - The LAPD has a Traffic Division commitment to providing officers with roll call training on bicycle safety but it is imperative that the training start with an Education Module at the Academy and that it is supported by significant ongoing education that reflects the changes that are taking place on our streets, in the traffic mix, in the legislature and in the courts.

11) Crime Reports - When a motorist has their car stolen, it's investigated by Traffic Investigators. When a cyclist has their bike stolen, should they walk to the nearest Police Station to give a report that is then investigated as a property crime? Can a cyclist give a "stolen bike" report over the telephone? What are the LAPD policies for crime reporting when it comes to cyclists? Road Rage reports, hit-and-run crimes, jurisdictional confusion, CVC interpretation that varies from the CHP to the Sheriffs to the LAPD, all on the same street in Los Angeles.

Good policing depends on good data which results from good crime reporting which is in need of some significant departmental policy and education, internally and externally. Cyclists contend that many crimes go unreported because the "hassle" factor exceeds the "impact" factor.

12) Bike Plan - The City of Los Angeles is in the process of updating the Bike Plan, which is a component of the Transportation Plan which is an element of the city's state-mandated General Plan. The LADOT and City Planning have spent two years and $450,000 on the Draft Bike Plan and yet they somehow forgot to involve the LAPD policy makers who might find the Bike Plan to be a useful tool for funding, for synchronizing with the City Family, for addressing priorities, for working with the other departments who have authority over the streets of LA, and most of all for making sure that the streets of Los Angeles are safe for everybody. Somehow this is simply unacceptable and the LAPD must be involved in the bike Plan update process.

13) Cyclists' Bill of Rights - LAPD Chief Charlie Beck has the Cyclists' Bill of Rights in his hands and it is up to him and his LAPD leadership team to support the cyclists of Los Angeles by establishing Equality as the foundation upon which we will work together to make Los Angeles a great place to ride.

Commander Doan of the LAPD's Operations Department is supported on the Cyclists/LAPD Task Force by Lt. Torsney, Sgt. Graham and Sgt. Krumer. They will be at the next meeting of the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee on Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 7 pm. The LABAC meets at Parker Center, 150 Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

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