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

CityWatch, May 27, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 42

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That didn’t happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - Route 66: Still Kickin' In East Hollywood

CityWatch, May 20, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 40

The East Hollywood Neighborhood Council (EHNC) has embarked on a journey to revitalize Santa Monica Boulevard,
the final stretch of America’s Main Street, embracing the Route 66 legacy as an opportunity to fulfill its City Charter mandate to “promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

David Bell, President of EHNC, kicked off the project by proclaiming “The EHNC is excited to support quality of life improvements in this under served community. By partnering with the business community, state and local governments, charitable organizations, and concerned stakeholders, we are able to leverage our efforts to create maximum impact.”

The East Hollywood Route 66 Task Force is committed to encouraging the local community to participate in the civic engagement process, first by identifying and working with the many civic partners, and then by embarking on community projects that address public safety, public works, public health, public education, and public service opportunities.

From the National Parks Service and its “Historic Route 66 Corridor Program” to LA’s Office of Historic Resources the Route 66 Task Force leverages the rich legacy of the past with the opportunity of the future.

The campaign kicked off with three components, the Economic Alliance, the Livability Initiative, and Civic Engagement.

The Route 66 Economic Alliance connects the local businesses and merchants from Sunset Junction to the 101 and has already raised the funds necessary to hire Chrysalis to conduct street cleaning, maintenance and graffiti removal. In addition, the Metro has partnered with the EA by steam cleaning all 22 blocks of the corridor, all as the result of leveraging a small investment by the neighborhood council into a sustainable effort.

The Route 66 Livability Initiative has embraced the Complete Streets standard and is engaging the community in the process of pursuing federal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) funding, California State Parks funding for a Route 66 park, a Caltrans Environmental Justice grant, and Historic Preservation funding.

The Civic Engagement component brings it all together with Town Halls and Forums that introduce the residents and business operators to their Federal, State, County and City of LA partners, from Caltrans and Metro to City Council and departments that include Street Services, Transportation, City Planning, and the LAPD.

Route 66 is neither the oldest of the longest stretch of highway in America but it certainly is the most famous. Tourists continue to travel to Chicago where they rent a car and drive across the country, re-invoking the romance of America’s Route 66 and reconnecting with the promise of the land of opportunity.

Built in the 20’s during a time of unparalleled social, economic, political disruption and global conflict, Route 66 opened up the west coast and gave people an opportunity to pursue their dreams in a land that is still famous for its great weather, economic opportunity, the entertainment industry, the tourist attractions, the arts & culture community and the creative energy.

In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the Route 66 Study Act which formally acknowledged that Route 66 “has become a symbol of the American people’s heritage of travel and their legacy of seeking a better life.”

To the people of East Hollywood, that better life consists of a densely populated and heavily traveled transit corridor that moves lots of traffic at the expense of those who struggle to cross the street and the local merchants who watch the world race by, always on the way to someplace else.

Once memorialized by poets, serenaded by musicians, and celebrated on television and in films, Route 66 was decommissioned in 1985, forgotten by most and in danger of losing its unique place in history.

For East Hollywood, it was a simple complaint from a stakeholder about overflowing trashcans that prompted the formation of the Route 66 Task Force, resulting in a campaign that has resonated through the community.

As Route 66 Task Force Chair Armen Makasjian prepared for the latest Route 66 Town Hall he proclaimed “As a second generation business owner on this street, I am thrilled at the attention being directed at this vital stretch of American history.”

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

CityWatchLA - Five Signs LA is a DIY City

CityWatch, May 17, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - City Planning Chief: From ‘Keeper of the Vision’ to ‘Merchant of Exceptions’

CityWatch, May 13, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 38

It was a shotgun wedding, Mayor Villaraigosa stood alongside Michael LoGrande as First Deputy Mayor Austin Beutner officiated, proclaiming “There’s no further need to conduct a search!” and then introducing the happy couple as Mayor and City Planning General Manager.

LoGrande was tapped to replace Gail Goldberg as the head of City Planning, a move that demonstrated the Mayor’s commitment to moving forward on the 12-2 program in an effort to speed up development.

Critics dismissed the action as a misguided “out with the planner, in with the expeditor” move that confirmed suspicions that City Hall belonged to the developers and the community was up for grabs.

Granted, there were some optimists who held hope that the move would translate into a more efficient department but they were outnumbered by pessimists who expressed fear that a more efficient department meant bad planning done faster, all of which was complemented by insiders who proclaimed “The Fixer is in!”

Nine months later, the City Planning Department has continued down the path of evisceration at the hands of the Mayor’s Budget Hawks and LoGrande has facilitated the move to cost recovery that has resulted in a department that is 75% funded through fees.

While some may look at this “cost recovery” scheme as fiscally responsible, it translates into an abdication of City Charter mandate and concludes the Planning Department’s transition from “keeper of the vision” to “merchant of exceptions.”

Land use and transportation issues are the stuff of legend, fracturing communities and dominating neighborhood civic engagement to the point of absurdity. Case by case debates over variances and exceptions that drag on and destroy trust in the process leave stakeholders distrustful and disenfranchised.

LoGrande had an opportunity and he took it, demonstrating with results that under the current planning process, good projects are nearly impossible and bad projects are highly profitable.

Some of the most active community planning advocates contend that LoGrande missed the real opportunity, one that would have required him to rally his department and fight for the funding necessary to really plan.

Critics refer to the disconnect between the elements of the General Plan and the Community Plans, the Specific Plans, the Master Plans, and the Vision Plans, all of which leave the battlefield of the community open to developers who can write 39,000 page documents as the bulldozers rev their engines and the public watches the circus come to town.

LoGrande had an opportunity to embrace technology and to actually connect real data with the direction that City Planning is headed but that failed to happen.

As the population declines, City Planning is braced to support further density, complete with antiquated code that results in empty lots on major boulevards, open parking lots that live on as protected use, huge developers that thrive while small developers go bankrupt, and a default attitude that allows the CRA to assume de facto Planning authority.

Yesterday’s Planning Commission hearing included a presentation that revealed 70% of the multi-unit development over the last several years consisted of projects that were 10 units or less. Yet the City of LA continues to punish (with codes of absurdity) small developers in favor of large “luxury living” developers who enjoy tax breaks and subsidies that result in housing in excess of demand for a market that doesn’t exist.

All this takes place while the middle class continues to get priced out of neighborhoods that locals refer to as “under siege” by developers who prey on communities by investing based on current zoning and then develop based on exceptions and variances that destroy the community and make a mockery of City Planning.

LoGrande has had nine months to demonstrate his convictions and his intentions. Based on results it appears that Bigger & Faster is his mantra and it is taking place at the expense of our city.

As Zev Yaroslavsky said at last week’s Citywide Alliance meeting, “This is not only a disaster for the people, the environment, and local neighborhoods, it's also a disaster for the builders. If the Rule of Law is gone, there is no stability and everyone suffers except for those who abuse the system.”

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

Forget the Budget Kabuki, How about City Budgeting Based on Performance?

CityWatch, May 10, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 37

City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee has proven so efficient at rubber-stamping the Mayor’s proposed budget that they recessed early. They apparently made sufficient noise as the City’s department chiefs paraded through council chambers in defense of their departments and their budgets.

Those speaking before the Committee tend to fall into one of three categories; those who completely fold and then overflow with gratitude for the privilege of maintaining their position as the head of an eviscerated department, those who accept the preordained but refuse to give it their blessing, and those who resist and call out the Mayor and City Council for their folly.

City Planning’s GM, Michael LoGrande, gave a category one performance, thanking anybody within thanking range and then accepting his fate, a loss for the people of LA who depend on a strong planning department as LA’s land-use debates continue to fracture communities.

Jon Kirk Mukri, General Manager of Recreation and Parks, represented the second category and came armed for battle and prepared for debate, but made no headway as the Mayor’s “cost-recovery” scheme continues to prey selectively on charter departments that deserve better.

William Carter of the City Attorney’s office, standing in for Carmen Trutanich, gave a fiery performance, calling out the budget as an abdication of responsibility, rejecting the budget cuts as short-sighted, and building a solid case for the value of his department.

On the whole, most department heads showed up ready to discuss departmental headcount, furlough impacts on staffing levels, and empty positions that needed to be filled. Few and far between were the discussions over intended performance, actual performance and proposed performance.

Demonstrating the difference a year can make, BongHwan (BH) Kim of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment did well in standing out from the crowd as he introduced DONE’s "Performance Dashboard" and spoke affirmatively of the past year and the upcoming year.

On the one hand, as the City of LA wallows in the budget crisis, it’s sad that the Committee spent so much time discussing neighborhood council stakeholder definitions and elections but it serves as a reminder that most people experience the $463 million budget gap on a personal level.

The proposal on the table for neighborhood councils was a 10% cut in funding (to $40,500 from $45,000) and the loss of rollover funds. Councilmen Koretz and Rosendahl made strong cases for protecting the encumbered funds, pointing out that many NC projects take years to complete and that the funding must be protected.

Other issues that came up were NC elections and the options that would allow councils to select boardmembers without having to spend millions of dollars as was the case with the City Clerk elections.

On the subject of elections, stakeholder definitions, by-law revisions, and funding options, Kim made two points; that much work was being performed by DONE in conjunction with NC Task Forces, and that CD2 (Paul Krekorian, Chair of the Education & Neighborhoods Committee) was working on the legislative revisions that are necessary for addressing structural issues.

The Mayor’s proposed budget was released to the City Council on April 20, and the Budget & Finance Committee took a week to review it before commencing with its Budget Hearings, a process that recessed several days early as enthusiasm faded and the opportunity to take on real structural change slipped away.

Budget & Finance is back at it today and tomorrow for a final polish and then presents it to the full City Council on Friday. Council has until June 1 to return the proposed budget with any recommended changes to the Mayor for the final stage of the approval process.

As the budget hearings fade into the sunset, neighborhood councils have a short amount of time to do three very important things; call your City Councilmember and speak up to protect rollover (encumbered but non-invoiced) funds, call DONE and give the GM encouragement if you like the direction he’s going, and start thinking now about which City Councilmember should head up the Education & Neighborhoods Committee when the City Council shuffles committee assignments in July.

Most importantly, speak up if you like the Performance Management style of departmental budget presentation, one where the year starts with projected performance. Department heads would be evaluated based on their goals and their accomplishments, their budgets would be set based on service commitments, not simply protecting headcounts.

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

CityWatchLA - For LADOT GM the Honeymoon is Way Past Over

CityWatch, May6, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 36

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - What IS Art?

CityWatch, May 3, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If only it were believable.

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

CityWatchLA - Yogi ‘Sparks’ Debate

CityWatch, Apr 29, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 34

CITY BUDGET HEARINGS
Stephen Box

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatch, Apr 26, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 33

LA’S ACE PROGRAM
Stephen Box

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - Streets are for People

CityWatch, Apr 22, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councilmembers Cardenas, Alarcon Dismiss NC Budget Recommendations

CityWatch, Apr 12, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 29

As the City of LA stares down an impending budget deficit of $500 million next year, Councilmembers Cardenas and Alarcon responded to the recommendations of the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates by dismissing them as naively optimistic and dangerously misleading.

“All I want to do is thank you for your efforts,” said Cardenas who then launched into a defensive diatribe that took the Budget Advocates to task for proposing the collection of unpaid debts.

While arguing for the complexity of the budget process, Cardenas revealed his greatest concern, the fear that the public will might walk away thinking “These are such simple solutions and all it took was these people with their volunteer time to tear into the budget and they did it better than the people who are paid to do it!”

Alarcon jumped on the defensive wagon with a straw-man attack, pointing out the folly of assuming that the business of collections has the potential to yield maximum returns. “At the end of the day, it’s never what it appears to be” he cautioned as he did the math and explained “debts of $200 million might only result in collections of $100 million.”

The Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates have spent the last six-months on a journey that included meeting regularly with the Mayor’s office along with department heads from throughout the city.

The NCBA recommendations were first given to Mayor Villaraigosa, then presented to the City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee which forwarded them to the City’s Administrative Officer for comments, and then to the full City Council.

Neighborhood Councils are not the only ones to confront the City of LA’s budget crisis with recommendations that are then presented to the Mayor and the City Council for consideration.

The Commission on Revenue Efficiency (CORE), chaired by Ron Galperin, was formed by the City Council a year ago and consists of seven members who are experienced in the fields of revenue collections and revenue enhancements. The CORE Blueprint for Reform of City Collections includes 65 specific recommendations for reform.

The Coalition of LA City Unions and the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City engaged in the process with 2010 recommendations entitled “A Strong Budget for LA" which offered a $432 million plan for balancing the budget.

It should go without saying that not all recommendations will yield maximum results but that hasn’t stopped some members of the City Council from focusing on obstacles rather than solutions.

Literally everybody, including those in the Mayor’s office, the City Council, the Budget Advocates and the City Family, have all experienced difficulty in getting hard data and current information on the city’s assets, revenue, debts, and hopes of balancing the budget.

While most agree that this is no way to run a great city, the “LA is just to big!” defense continues to serve as an impediment to a comprehensive data driven journey to a balanced budget that puts the city family to work delivering the city services that the people of LA expect and deserve.

The Mayor is scheduled to deliver his proposed 2011-2012 budget to the City Council on April 20th, a deadline that is set by City Charter. The City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee will then begin budget hearings on April 27th, a process that takes weeks.
The City Charter also provides that neighborhood councils exist "to promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs" and that "each neighborhood council may present to the Mayor and Council an annual list of priorities for the City budget."

BudgetLA convenes this Saturday, April 16, in Hollywood and features a “State of the Budget” program that includes Deputy Mayor Larry Frank, CORE President Ron Galperin, and Neighborhood Empowerment GM BongHwan Kim.

Julie Butcher and Paul Hatfield will offer two different perspectives on the City of LA’s labor, pensions, and healthcare obligations.

Jay Handel, Dr. Dan Wiseman and Heinrich Keifer will present the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates recommendations.

BudgetLA is "a grassroots campaign fighting to develop a sustainable budget for the City of Los Angeles" and is open to the public.

BudgetLA

April 16, 2011

10 am to 1 pm

First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood

“The Cellar”

1760 N. Gower Street

Hollywood, CA 90028

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

CityWatchLA - Paper or Plastic?

CityWatch, Apr 12, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 29

The City of LA’s hopes of becoming the “Greenest Big City” diminish in the wake of continued large scale promises and small scale deliveries, the County of Los Angeles, the city of Santa Monica and now the City of Long Beach confront the little steps that add up to big results. The Long Beach City Council weighs in this week on proposed legislation that simply duplicates the County of LA ban and includes the following elements:

• Plastic carryout bags are banned at all supermarkets and other grocery stores, convenience stores, food marts, pharmacies and drug stores, which are required to provide recyclable paper carryout bags to impose a charge of ten (10) cents to a customer to cover reasonable costs associated with the ordinance.
• Paper bags must be made from a minimum of 40% post-consumer, recycled content.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved its approved ordinance after an extensive EIR and deliberative process that considered four alternatives before approving the “Ban Plastic Carryout Bags and Impose a Fee on Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County.”

The County, Santa Monica, and Long Beach have all considered the many factors involved, from the cost of not acting to the impact of the ban on plastic bags.

One of the concerns in the debate over “Paper vs. Plastic” is the damage the use of paper represents but the County of LA reports that “paper bags have the potential to biodegrade if they are sufficiently exposed to oxygen, sunlight, moisture, soil, and microorganisms (such as bacteria);...” In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) reported that the recycling rate for paper bags was triple that of plastic bags (36.8% to 11.9%) in 2007. Therefore, based upon the available evidence, paper carryout bags are less likely to become litter than are plastic carryout bags.

Even so, the proposed 10-cent fee is expected to further reduce consumer use of paper bags. The ordinance also bans biodegradable and compostable bags because there is a lack of commercial composting facilities in the County that would be needed to process compostable or biodegradable plastic carryout bags.

The people of LA County use approximately 6 billion plastic carryout bags a year with less than 5 percent of plastic bags are recycled, representing an enormous burden in our environment as well as a significant waste of oil and other fossil fuels used in the production of single-use bags.

While communities surrounding LA distinguish themselves as good stewards of their environment and their economy, the City of LA sits idle, confronted with the challenging question “Is Los Angeles ready for a ban on plastic bags?”

LA Green Screen addresses the issue of plastic bags with the screening of the documentary “Bag It” at the Barnsdall Gallery Theatre followed by a panel discussion of the issues, obstacles and benefits of a City of LA ban on plastic bags.

LA Green Screen

presents:

Bag It

A film screening and a panel discussion

“Is Los Angeles ready for a ban on plastic bags?”

An Earth Week event

Wednesday, April 13th at 8pm

at the Barnsdall Gallery Theatre in Hollywood

Bag It follows “everyman” Jeb Berrier as he navigates our plastic world. Jeb is not a radical environmentalist, but an average American who decides to take a closer look at our cultural love affair with plastics. Jeb’s journey in this documentary film starts with simple questions: Are plastic bags really necessary? What are plastic bags made from? What happens to plastic bags after they are discarded?

Jeb looks beyond plastic bags and discovers that virtually everything in modern society—from baby bottles, to sports equipment, to dental sealants, to personal care products—is made with plastic or contains potentially harmful chemical additives used in the plastic-making process. When Jeb’s journey takes a personal twist, we see how our crazy-for-plastic world has finally caught up with us and what we can do about it. Today. Right now.

A panelist discussion immediately follows the screening.

Panelists include:

• Katherine Rubin - Managing Environmental Specialist, LADWP Sustainability Programs
• Andy Shrader - Independent member of the Clean Seas Coalition, co-lead grassroots organizer for Los Angeles citywide plastic bag ban push
• Meredith McCarthy - Heal the Bay


Tickets: $5 suggested donation

Where: Barnsdall Gallery Theatre, 4800 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood, CA 90028 (come up Olive Hill through the south gate on Hollywood Blvd. just west of Vermont)

When: April 13th at 8pm (doors open at 7:30pm)

Directions and parking:
Bike accessible and bike parking available in front of the Gallery. Find your route via http://bikemetro.com
Metro accessible via Sunset & Vermont Red Line Station and Rapid and Local service on Hollywood Blvd., Sunset Blvd. and Vermont Ave. Find your route via http://metro.net
Car accessible via 101 Freeway and Vermont Ave. Free parking available throughout the park. Carpool if possible.

Contact:
Enci Box
Enci@illuminateLA.com

For more movie info visit www.BagItMovie.com

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

CityWatchLA - Budget Showdown in the Garden

CityWatch, Apr 5, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 27

As theCity of LA faces a budget shortfall of somewhere between $350 million and $500 million (depending on the day and the source), the Rec & Parks Commission (RAP) is preparing to act on RAP staff recommendations to shakedown the Community Gardens family for “budget dust” in a process that demonstrates all that is upside down about the budget process.

One would think that in times of lean, the local community farmers would be supported as community assets, encouraged to teach others to turn fallow land into sources of healthy food, cultural intersections, and environmental tools for healthy communities, all run by volunteers.

But instead, the RAP Commission meets tomorrow morning and will accept a staff recommendation to raise the plot fee for community gardens on RAP land by 380%. Prior discussions have focused on the notion of “cost recovery” but now the RAP staff propose to reward the volunteers by declaring the gardens “open space” and then placing three year term limits on each gardener.

The notion of “cost recovery” is a Mayoral directive that sounded reasonable until it was discovered that in some cases the gardens weren’t on City of LA land, in some cases there was no cost, and in some cases the associated costs are for RAP staff that don’t actually service the gardens.

The cloud of accountability at RAP prompted Commission President Barry Sanders to declare that he didn’t think the Department of Recreation and Parks should be in the business of managing gardens, a concept that resonated through the gardening community but not through the department.

Now comes the staff report that includes enough cumbersome language and troubling clauses that it clearly demonstrates the need to put more gardeners in City Hall and fewer bureaucrats in the garden.

There are dozens of community gardens throughout Los Angeles, typically established on fallow and abandoned land, now revitalized and repurposed by volunteer urban farmers. The gardens provide seniors and low income families healthy food while creating a positive environmental solution in densely populated neighborhoods. Some gardens have an educational focus, some have community space, and some focus on cultural pollination.

There are many hosts for the community gardens, ranging from the PORT of LA, the Bureau of Sanitation, the CA Department of Transportation, LA’s Department of Water & Power, the Army Corps of Engineers, and LA’s Department of Rec & Parks.

In most cases the gardens are simply admired from a distance and appreciated as a huge improvement over the alternative of empty and blighted land that would require maintenance and supervision. But in the case of the gardens on Rec & Parks land, the department sees a “cost recovery” opportunity.

The Community Gardeners argue that:

• The increased fee is excessive, it will destroy long established community facilities, and it puts the welfare of RAP staff ahead of the welfare of the tax-paying public.
• The increased fee is not only excessive, it fails to account for the financial contributions of the volunteer gardeners who pay for improvements and maintenance for land outside their garden.
• The increased fee sets a bad precedent of charging volunteers who work to improve the quality of life in their community. Who next? Neighborhood Watch Groups? Emergency Preparedness Teams? Literacy Instructors?
• The increased fee is a one-size-all solution that actually violates pre-existing land deeds and contracts, demonstrating the folly of a RAP proposal that seeks to standardize gardens to fit into their departmental structure.
• The RAP staff proposal includes elements that have nothing to do with “cost recovery” but simply justify staff participation in the ongoing operation, consuming any potential revenue.
• The RAP staff proposal recommends designating the gardens as “public space” which is a transparent staffing tactic that establishes a troubling precedent for land set aside for specific use.
• The RAP staff proposal recommends term limits, demonstrating a callousness toward both the process of gardening and the time and labor needed to develop a fruitful garden, as well as to the disruptions of community which such a term limit clause would create.
• The RAP staff proposal takes an interesting approach to moving forward, recommending the termination of agreements and permits as the beginning point of the development of “Partnership Agreements.” Cavalier at best, it fails to demonstrate a win-win approach to establishing long-term positive relationships.

Community Gardeners from around the Los Angeles will be fighting for the gardens operated on land controlled by LA’s Department of Rec and Parks. The general position of the gardening community is simple; drop the open space and term limit proposals, build partnerships before terminating relationships, and implement “cost recovery” with real data, not inflated staffing justifications.

The battle over community gardens is simply the beginning and the results will resonate through the Department of Rec and Parks and the City, laying down a foundation of “cost recovery” strategies that will have an impact throughout Los Angeles.

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

CityWatchLA - The City’s Contract with the People: “Silence Gives Consent”

CityWatch, Apr 1, 201
Vol 9 Issue 261

The City of LA’s current budget crisis puts City Hall in a “Contract vs. Contract” predicament that pits the people of LA against the employees of LA, one where the people who pay for services and the people who deliver services are both confronted with lose-lose proposals.

The City of Los Angeles exists for one very simple purpose, to deliver on its Civic Contract with the people of LA by delivering city services that are paid for by taxes collected from the people and funds collected on behalf of the people. Simple enough.

The City of Los Angeles entered into contracts with the City Family in order to deliver on its Civic Contract, agreeing to pay for the delivery of city services to the people of LA by encumbering the City of LA with financial obligations that ended up preventing the delivery of City Services. Huge complication.

Through it all, one thing that everyone can agree on is this; the City of LA’s current budget crisis is challenging the status quo and the City of LA will be going through significant structural changes that will have a dramatic impact on everybody, including the residents, the employees and the elected managers of the City machine.

While the legal concept of “Qui tacet consentiret” (silence gives consent) may only offer the City of LA thin grounds for violating its contract with the people of LA, the simple fact remains, the squeaky wheel gets the oil and the people of LA aren’t squeaking.

That will change on Saturday, April 16, 2011 when BudgetLA convenes in Hollywood, offering the people of LA an opportunity to speak up, to claim their contractual rights to the full delivery of city services, and to take action addressing the City of LA’s budget crisis and the future of Los Angeles.

BudgetLA will present an array of experts, insiders and outsiders, to address the elements of the budget crisis and the potential outcomes. All of this is in preparation for the April 20, 2011 release of the Mayor’s proposed Budget for 2011-2012 and the beginning of the City Council’s budget hearings.

BudgetLA

Saturday, April 16, 2011

10 am to 1 pm

Hollywood Presbyterian Church

1760 N. Gower Street
Hollywood, CA 90028

Map of Church and Freeway

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

CityWatchLA - After Years of Budget Rehearsal, Time Now for LA’s Mayor and Council to Act

CityWatch, Mar 25, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 24

It’s Budget Season in the City of LA and the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) has fired the first shot, declaring this the “age of permanent fiscal crisis" and subtly shifting blame for the city’s budget crisis from the captain and crew of the good ship Los Angeles and placing it firmly on the turbulent seas that lead us to the iceberg. (Link) Miguel Santana’s 219 page report acknowledges LA’s 14.4% unemployment rate and a projected budget deficit for 2011-12 of $350 million, but softens the message by pointing out that the federal, state, county and surrounding municipalities are also in dire straits, “struggling to find ways to fund even the most basic programs and services the public expects.”

This message of normalcy may be diplomatic but it’s not quite accurate. While the economic storm is turbulent for everybody, the City of LA is faring worse than the others that sail the same seas. It is imperative that the CAO address the emergency with the sense of urgency that it deserves or the City Council will simply continue to hide crew and pet projects in the DWP’s stateroom.

To Santana’s credit, his message has been and is consistent with his goal of a long term balanced budget based on a framework of four strategies: Responsible Management and Fiscal Practices, Focus on Core Services, Alternative Service Delivery Models, and Maintaining a Sustainable Workforce.

Complementing the CAO’s report and call to action comes the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates and their recommendations for the Mayor as he prepares to release the Mayor’s Budget on April 20 to the City Council. The NCBA’s presentation also consisted of four strategies: Increasing Efficiency, Generating Revenues, Structural Changes, and Reducing Expenses. (Link) [[[

Both the CAO and the NCBA’s agree that escalating pension and health care costs are responsible for driving the city’s budget up by more than 50% over the last decade, a period of time in which the size of the actual workforce has declined.

This unsustainable business model has reached the crisis point and it is incumbent on the Mayor and the City Council to forgo the “Wait it out!” strategy of past years and to address the situation as an actual crisis that demands a comprehensive and systemic commitment to a long term solution.

Missing from the CAO’s report and the NCBA’s recommendations is any mention of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and the $1.3 Billion that was just shuffled from one stateroom to another. The Budget Advocates addressed the CRA last year but apparently the CRA is off the radar this year. This is hardly consistent with the “Everything is on the table!” mantra the public hears when the budget scythe comes whacking at the community gardens.

Through it all, there appears to be movement in the ongoing discussions between City Hall and the unions, at least some of them. As of yesterday, the Coalition of LA City Unions has reached a tentative agreement that is touted as “a major deal that could save LA $400 million over the next four years, resulting in the suspension of furloughs and the need to lay off 600 employees.”

The Coalition of LA City Unions represents about ⅓ of LA’s union workforce and as they take the deal back to membership for a vote, the potential for this Mayoral press conference victory party to resonate throughout the City of LA workforce is significant.

Meanwhile, there is much budget balancing work to be done.

This is the fourth year in a row that the Mayor and City Council have allowed LA to drift through the budget crisis.

Santana’s recommendations are painful, they offer highs and lows of projected impacts, all of which are dependent on some hard commitments and some even harder choices. At the end of the day, they offer a choice between barely balancing the budget for the short term to balancing for the long term and replenishing the reserve. All that’s missing is the resolve to do it.

The Mayor and City Council don’t need to hunt any further for budget solutions, they have the CAO’s report, they have the Budget Advocate recommendations, and they have grassroots support for decisive action.

What they lack is the ability to let go of the ill-conceived hope that the economy will flourish, the seas will go calm, the iceberg will melt, and we’ll all sail off into the sunset.

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

What a Difference a Few Years Make: A Journey to Relevance

LA’s Bike Plan has already caused traffic congestion, clogging the steps of City Hall as the Mayor, the City Controller, and a full peloton of Councilmembers stood before the press on Wednesday to declare “Los Angeles is on the path to becoming a world-class city for bicycling.”

What a difference a few years make! It has been ages since I innocently visited City Planning Publications to purchase a copy of the General Plan’s Transportation Element ($15) in an effort to locate the current Bike Plan. As I flipped the pages, I found a placeholder that indicated where the Bike Plan would be if it were worth printing. (It wasn’t) Thus began the journey to relevance.

Three years ago, the LADOT hired a consultant from Portland to guide the City of LA in the process of developing a new Bike Plan. At the first meeting, before a standing-room-only crowd, the consultant opened by stating, “We’re gonna have to move fast, we have a lot of ground to cover and we don’t have much time.”

It was at this point that Alex Thompson, President of Bikeside, jumped to his feet and interrupted the consultant with the simple challenge “Why not?”

That became the battle cry of the community as LA’s Department of “No!” led the Bike Plan development process.

“Why not?”

Along the way, the LADOT spent $400,000 on the consultant’s Bike Plan, one that was eventually scrapped.

Meanwhile, the community banded together under the banner of the LA Bike Working Group and developed a crowd-sourced vision for connectivity, one that transitioned into a City Planning process that involved people from all walks, er ...rides.

LA’s current Bike Plan is a victory because of its content, most significantly the Backbone Bikeway Network that will bring together greater synchronicity of basic city services on the big streets that already move people of all modes.

The Bike Plan is also a victory because it is the result of a community driven process, one where people of all modes and perspectives had a voice in the process. In fact, the City Hall peloton also included folks from the Bikesiders, the LACBCers, Midnight Ridazz, the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee, C.I.C.L.E., the Valley Bikery, the Bicycle Kitchen, and Pacoima Beautiful demonstrating the power of a common ground approach to planning.

Most important, the Bike Plan is a victory because it offers the City of LA an opportunity to pursue funding that will make our streets work for everybody, whether they walk, ride a bike, take mass transit or use a personal vehicle.

After all, streets that are good for cyclists are good for everybody.

Cyclists favor well-maintained streets free of potholes and debris. They prefer streets with moderate vehicle volumes and speeds, an environment that is likewise safer and more hospitable for both motorists and pedestrians.

Surveys in San Francisco found that local businesses benefited from "traffic calming" through their districts, which included accommodations for cyclists.

Finally, an increase in the number of cyclists in a neighborhood -- which means more eyes on the street -- has a direct relationship to a reduction in crime.

In other words, what's good for cyclists is good for your community and LA’s Bike Plan has the capacity to do something that no other plan has ever done, connect the plans.

LA has a General Plan, it has Community Plans, it has Specific Plans, it has Master Plans, it has Vision Plans, it has a River Plan...it is a City of Plans! They compete, they contradict, they confuse and now is the time to connect them!

Imagine if the Bike Plan were to be used as a model for engaging the community in the process, for bringing some connectivity to the many plans, for preserving the character and personality of our neighborhoods and for providing a toolbox of transportation solutions that blend with our local land-use priorities so that neighborhoods are empowered, not overpowered.

The long and arduous journey to the finish line for LA’s Bike Plan has clearly demonstrated that a group of outsiders can move City Hall. News of this success story has resonated throughout the country, but what’s most important is what happens on the streets of LA.

Now is the time to work with neighborhood councils, community groups, homeowners associations and Angelenos of all modes so that the spirit of connectivity can resonate through Los Angeles.

While the City Hall peloton stands at the finish line press conference, our greatest opportunity is to establish this as the beginning, not the end, of a significant journey that will continue to connect Los Angeles.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

CityWatchLA - NBC Universal Project: Example of All that’s Wrong with LA Planning Process

CityWatch, Mar 1, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 17

NBC Universal’s Evolution project is moving forward in a City of LA planning process that is a clear demonstration of all that is wrong with planning and land use policy in the City of Los Angeles. The developer driven process starts with an attack on the already low standards that purportedly protect the people of LA and then continue with exceptions and variances that result in a full assault on the local community.

Developer funded Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), traffic mitigation plans, and community benefit proposals all create a Kumbaya message that is in stark contrast to the simple reality; our infrastructure is collapsing, our streets are congested, emergency services are already challenged, and our environment is choking.

Through it all, the people we send to City Hall stand by and when pressured are only able to come up with one objection, “We need more time!”

NBC Universal’s Evolution project is positioned as an upgrade to existing film production facilities while the simple reality is this, it is the creation of a new residential community on a 391-acre property bordered by the LA River and the Hollywood Hills.

In support of the project comes a 39,000 page EIR, a document so large that it serves to highlight the implausible “hugeness” of the project that is being shoehorned into a patch of land, “all without expanding the current property.”

As Councilmember Tom LaBonge stood before the Planning Commission and asked for an extension of the hearing process until after the March 8 election, organizations from all directions stood by with well reasoned and researched commentary that falls on deaf ears.

The Studio City Neighborhood Council submitted a 98 page review (download pdf) of the Evolution project that comprehensively reviewed the project and concluded “The DEIR does not adequately address the impacts on the community from the proposed Project.” Anyone who has tried to navigate Barham during rush hour knows that the impact on the surrounding communities is already beyond capacity.

The Transit Coalition submitted an analysis (download pdf) of the Evolution project’s transit, bike, and pedestrian accessibility. It challenged the project’s claim of a modal shift away from private vehicles and called for “important modifications to meet the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) standard for less than significant impacts.” Anyone who has tried to walk up the Universal hill or navigate the incomplete river bike path knows that the projected mode shift is simply wishful thinking unsubstantiated by reality.

The Friends of Griffith Park analyzed the Evolution project’s impact on the surrounding environment, including the Santa Monica Mountains Range and the Los Angeles River Corridor, and concluded by stating “the scope of the project must be reduced dramatically in order to fully comply with CEQA mitigation requirements.”

Anyone who has ever stood on top of the Mt. Lee knows that the existing ecosystem is incompatible with any further development assault.

This cry for help is an indictment of the process for three reasons:

1) City Planning’s current cost-recovery process simply allows developers to shop for the solutions and decisions that serve them, forcing residents to fight an uphill battle against a ticking clock as LA’s soft City Plan fails protecting the character and personality of our neighborhoods.

2) The Mayor and the City Council’s laissez-faire attitude to development run amok is a complete abdication of their mandate to develop, implement, and enforce a comprehensive, long range General Plan that establishes purposes, policies and programs for the development of the City of Los Angeles.

3) Neighborhood councils, advocacy organizations, and community groups have risen to the occasion, demonstrating with their comprehensive and professional analysis of the Evolution project that LA has become a DIY city, one where our commitment to the future of LA comes from the neighborhood, not from City Hall.

The people of LA have the right to expect a well-planned, well-funded city that operates based on standards that the people of LA can depend on.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)