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.)

CityWatchLA - LACityWorks! Taking Care of Business

CityWatch, Feb 25, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 16

SOLUTIONS 

If the City of LA is serious about taking care of LA’s business community, stimulating the local economy, creating more jobs, and attracting new business, then City Hall will get busy leveraging federal Small Business Jobs Act funding to create a one-stop “LACityWorks” shop that supports LA business.

The model for this concept can be found at FilmLA, a non-profit with a simple mission, to facilitate filming in the Los Angeles area. With a simple phone call or an even simpler online interaction, large studios and student films alike can navigate the many jurisdictions of LA County, they can pull permits, they can quickly navigate the rules and regulations, and they can rely on FilmLA to create common ground solutions when problems arise. FilmLA was created by Mayor Riordan in an effort to halt runaway film production and to support LA’s position as the entertainment production capital of the world.

There was a bit of a learning curve for everybody, at City Hall and on location, but ultimately the evidence is there that a non-profit can leverage funding that can support business, both large and small, and it can take place quickly.

LA’s business community is represented by a vast array of organizations, all jockeying for position in an environment that repeatedly generates lose-lose solutions that continue to create obstacles.

At yesterday’s Transportation Committee, Councilman Tom LaBonge’s Food Truck motion was on the agenda and the audience was filled with speakers from neighborhood councils, Business Improvement Districts, Chambers of Commerce, Homeowners Associations, trade organizations and the general public. All that was missing was LaBonge, the author of the motion. The motion was continued to a later date and the public in attendance enjoyed 60 seconds each of Kabuki Theatre public comment.

This is no way to run a Great City!

If LACityWorks were to use the FilmLA model for supporting local business, they’d have a Board of Directors filled with representatives from the chambers, from the trade organizations, from the community, from local and regional government, and from the streets of LA where the business takes place.

LACityWorks would offer businesses, both large and small, support in navigating the Byzantine process that is even bigger than the City of LA. Food Truck operators, for example, must navigate several municipalities and their unique permitting rules, abide by LA County health codes, drive and park according to California Vehicle Code, and find time to comply with federal and state tax codes.

FilmLA offers local and visiting film production companies one-stop shop assistance in navigating the many jurisdictions and authorities in LA County.

By contrast, LA’s City Hall offers local businesses “that’s out of our jurisdiction!” responses to requests for assistance that involve the State, the County, the LAUSD, the Metro, the Army Corps of Engineers, Flood Control, Caltrans, the Sheriff’s Department, or anyone else who has a piece of our streets.

If this seems extreme, consider that Venice Blvd. belongs to the State; Universal City is on County land; the LAUSD is the largest developer in the City of LA; the Metro is the second largest developer in the City of LA; and the City of LA’s inability to navigate its own halls leave the people of LA adrift in a jurisdictional quagmire that chokes business, both small and large.

FilmLA also provides operational guidance for production companies and the people who actually do the work. There is a code, a set of rules that provide the simple “do no harm!” approach to film production that is the foundation of a win-win solution.

With success and popularity comes an opportunity to mitigate the resulting tensions and competition for resources and FilmLA mediates, provides monitors, and brings together stakeholders in the creation of long-term solutions.

City Hall, by contrast, orders reports, fumbles meetings, measures outrage and postpones contentious items, demonstrating an inability to commit to long-term sustainable solutions.

FilmLA offers their clients support in navigating the many regulatory bodies and in pulling the necessary permits and processing the paperwork. Whether working with animals, minors, pyrotechnics, traffic or any of a limitless number of conditions, the need for permitting and oversight can be overwhelming. Yet it works because FilmLA offers the support.

By contrast, the City of LA is preparing to send penalty letters to people who worked last year and were paid as independent contractors. Pity the poor employee who showed up to work and collected a 1099 form but failed to register with the City of LA as a business. The threat of a significant fine that only applies to the few is a demonstration of the inherent systemic hostility that LA business and employees encounter in Los Angeles.

FilmLA also collected data that was used to support and encourage the film industry, data that can be used to fine tune programming and drive efficiencies and strengthen the industry.

By contrast, the City of LA is still unclear on how to support local businesses in simply offering their goods and services to city, state, and local governments. Forget about the larger local economy.

FilmLA has experienced a rough road over the last decade and the work is not done. But we are now in a position to benefit from that journey and put the lessons learned to work supporting LA’s business community.

The City of LA’s local economy has a huge need that is unmet by the local chambers, the local trade organizations, the local business districts, the local leadership and the community organizations. More specifically, LA is experiencing a crisis of Leadership, inside City Hall and on the streets where the business takes place.

Now is the time for the people of LA to come together and to create a city that works.

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

CityWatchLA - Big Obstacles for Small Businesses

CityWatch, Feb 22, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 15

CUTTING THROUGH THE RED TAPE

Last week I claimed “one of the simplest strategies for jump-starting LA’s local economy would be to retool the current ‘bigger is better’ approach to business development in favor of a model that supports small businesses.”

That proverbial swing at the hornet’s nest drew quick protests from both bureaucrats and academics.

Cries of “We’re already doing it!” to “It’ll never work!” coming from people who are content with a faltering economy left me convinced that I was on the right track.

From inside City Hall I heard, “Deputy Mayor Austin Beutner is already committed to streamlining the process so that small businesses don’t have to deal with so many departments.”

Apart from the fact that such a common sense standard applies to everybody, not just small businesses, this claim of victory falls so far short as to simply be an irrelevant non-starter.

Small businesses face obstacles at the local, county, state, and federal level and it is imperative that the City of LA leverage funding to create a network of support for those who are in the best position to create jobs for Angelenos.

By way of example, Film LA is a nonprofit that services the film industry and navigates the interdepartmental multi-jurisdictional journey for film production, a model that could be used to support small businesses. At one time, Film LA also collected data that was used to support the industry, again a model for leveraging funding and political will to drive the success of small businesses.

Small businesses spend 36 % more per employee than larger firms to comply with federal regulations. Very small firms spend 4 ½ times as much per employee to comply with environmental regulations and 3 times more per employee on tax compliance than their largest counterparts.

Cutting red-tape at city hall is a nice start but it is only a start. LA must take a leadership role in leveraging federal funds to create Small Business Development Centers that support LA’s entrepreneurs.

From Academia I heard “every day, many small businesses fail. Why pour our money into small businesses, many of which are likely to fail?”

Businesses fail, both small and large, but the simple fact is this: small businesses are responsible for generating 65% of net new jobs over the past 17 years.

As for longevity, 7 out of 10 new employer firms survive at least 2 years, ½ at least 5 years, ⅓ at least 10 years, and ¼ stay in business 15 years or more.

Perhaps it’s time to look at the obstacles that impact the survival rate, not simply cut our losses and walk away. While “facilitating the permitting process and eliminating other administrative barriers to growth” are noble first steps, they are simply first steps.

Small businesses struggle for working capital, for access to markets, and for the resources and benefits that will allow them to compete for talented and skilled employees.

Yet, somehow they are able to produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms. Somehow they are able to create and innovate and prosper while those in control debate their value.

Now is the time to come out from behind the City Hall counter, to get off the academic high horse, and to meet the small businesses on the street, where our economy takes place.

Start with the City of LA as a client and consider how difficult it is to do business in LA. Small businesses currently find it difficult to bid on City Hall contracts while larger companies find the process so cumbersome that the price immediately goes up when the City of LA is the client.

This is why small businesses eventually give up and move to surrounding communities where they find a supportive environment and eager customers. If City Hall can’t clean up City Hall, there’s no chance they’ll ever clean up the City of LA!

A couple of years ago, I sat with a group of community advocates in a small facility that was going to be developed as a community room. It was in a brand new building and our room needed to be finished.

A little paint, a little carpet. We were excited!

Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way in LA. Apparently no one will bid on a contract so small. We were told to think big!

The next time we met, an architect had come on board and the “finishing work” now had a budget of $250,000. Now this was a project that was worth bidding on!

The community room was never finished, it still sits empty, unpainted and uncarpeted. The weight of bureaucracy crushed it and the bias in favor of large companies willing to do business with LA reared its ugly head and destroyed our hopes for a community room.

Ironically, we were not allowed to do the work ourselves because we weren’t an approved vendor for the City of LA.

Small businesses are the backbone of LA’s local economy. They are agile and they are flexible and they put Angelenos to work. They provide the services and products that LA’s City Hall needs and that is the place to start.

City Hall’s role is not to make an “either/or” choice between large and small companies, it’s to support them based on their value and their potential for success.

That simple standard puts small businesses in a priority position for City Hall’s support!

(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 - LA: Complaint-Driven City

CityWatch, Feb 18, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 14

The City of LA is one of the greatest cities in the world but it is also one of the most dysfunctional, one where the delivery of city essential city services is driven by complaints, not a commitment to performance standards that the people of LA can depend on.

Councilmembers position themselves as gatekeepers who fill potholes and install speed humps as if they were personal favors bestowed upon the select few who have access to the council office.

This “pothole politics” approach to running the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world takes place while the budget deficit spirals out of control, while our infrastructure is collapsing, and while development runs amok.

It simply isn’t working. You shouldn’t have to go to your council office to get smooth, safe, well-lit streets that move traffic and get you where you need to go. You shouldn’t have to call 311 to state the obvious, that the large hole in the street appears to be...gulp...a pothole!

The simple reality is this, the city knows where the potholes are. They are measuring outrage and they are limiting liability.

The City Attorney regularly pays for damages caused by potholes, if the pothole had been reported before the incident. Your 311 calls don’t help the city find the potholes, they help the city absolve itself of responsibility and liability for the potholes not reported.

The Bureau of Street Services not only knows where the potholes are, they know where the new ones are likely to appear. BOSS surveys 69,000 street segments with a van that is loaded with video, laser, and computer equipment in a data collection process that takes three years to complete. They have the data.

What they don’t have is the support of City Council on simply moving forward with an aggressive and comprehensive plan for repairing our streets and sidewalks.

There’s no mystery as to the location of the potholes and broken sidewalks. The missing element is simply political will, the commitment to craft a budget that supports the Great City mandate.

Public Safety, Public Works, Public Health, and Public Education are the cornerstones of a Great City and it is imperative that the City of LA craft a budget that is balanced for the long-term and matches our long-term commitment to a well-planned and well-funded city.

The City of LA is bleeding money on short term fixes while ignoring the need for long term solutions.

The era of pothole politics is over.

Now is the time to demand a standards-driven city, one where our city administration delivers services according to 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.)

CityWatchLA - Times of Crisis: Think Small

CityWatch, Feb 15, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 13

LA NEEDS TO SUPPORT SMALL BIZ

As the Active ImageCity of LA wallows in the midst of a staggering budget shortfall, it appears that one of the simplest strategies for jumpstarting LA’s local economy would be to retool the current “bigger is better” approach to business development in favor of a model that supports small businesses.

According to the latest jobs report, only 36,000 new jobs were added to the national economy in the month of January. At the same time, figures from Intuit Payroll’s monthly Small Business Employment Index show that payroll clients with fewer than 20 employees added 70,000 new jobs during the same month. The City of LA invests valuable time and resources courting large corporations but the results fail to justify the effort. Meanwhile, small businesses are demonstrating an agility and adaptability that allows them to leverage small investments into huge payoffs in jobs created, services provided, and overall economic impact.

Nationwide, small businesses have added more than 1 million jobs since October 2009 but in Los Angeles, where fully two-thirds of the local economy is made up of small businesses, entrepreneurs capable of bidding on local contracts clearly communicate the need for municipal assistance to jump start the process. During Mayor Villaraigosa’s January Neighborhood Council “check-ins,” residents commented on the need for a City services clearinghouse for small businesses.

Los Angeles is in position to capitalize on the Obama Administration’s new “Small Business Jobs Act” as an opportunity to bolster job growth in the small business sector. But to compete for federal small business grants LA will need to develop an effective framework to aid Small Business Development Centers that can implement federal funds quickly and efficiently.

Los Angeles is in position to partner with the local small business network in the delivery of core services, ensuring that project deliveries stay on track and that the city remains in compliance with federal guidelines. But fully 60% of the small businesses in position to deliver services and product indicate that they don’t have access to the capital necessary to bid on the contracts.

Small businesses are hiring at a faster rate than city government and big corporations and LA must support the economic drivers by looking for the small businesses within each industry and look for opportunities to bolster their position.

Supporting LA’s small businesses will yield results in these four ways:

• It will improve upon LA’s implementation shortfalls of the federal stimulus funds and Measure R revenues;
• It will optimize LA’s ability to qualify for federal small business grants;
• It will provide local community organizations an opportunity to qualify for grants and partner with local businesses to provide the services that are no longer offered by the city;
• It will increase the number of new hires within the small business sector, putting Angelenos to work and strengthening our economy.

LA’s small businesses drive our economy and it’s time that the City of LA treat them like giants, made up of the most innovative and creative people in the world, folks who need our help almost as much as we need theirs.

(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 - LA Fails to Cash the Check

CityWatch, Feb 11, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 12

The City of LA is mired in a budget crisis, one that has prompted the mayor to go on a “confidence tour” while the city council conducts triage on city assets and the people of LA brace themselves for the next round of service cuts and fee increases.

While those in control would have us believe that this is all due to the current global economic crisis, it’s not quite true. Quite simply, the City of LA has been mismanaging money through thick and thin, through feast and famine, and even when the funding comes through, LA fails to cash the check.

While city hall attempts to balance the budget on the backs of the people who live here and who operate small businesses here, the real opportunities to pay our staff, repair our infrastructure, support healthy communities and partner with our schools are missed because of simple ineptitude.

1) The City of LA competes with itself for funding. The federal and state government both have Safe Routes to School funding, dispensed on an annual basis and LA allows the Department of Transportation, Public Works, and the CRA to all submit projects that compete with each other. A more efficient solution would be to allow Public Works (a charter department) to take the lead and then to ask the hard question, “Why is there a redundancy of services by the LADOT and the CRA?”

2) The City of LA simply fails to compete for great funding. The Office of Traffic Safety provides funds that can pay for public safety personnel and overtime but LA continues to go after funding for “Watch the Road” billboards as the city council debates furloughs and layoffs.

3) The City of LA qualifies for funding and then simply fails to do the work.

• It’s been years since the city council addressed the fact that 33 of the most dangerous street crossings for schoolchildren had not received safety improvements even though the funds had been in place for years. They blamed city staff.

• It’s been years since I stood on Wilshire Blvd. with LA’s gridlock busting Mayor, Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel, and LADOT GM Rita Robinson to announce the federal funding that was going to be spent on revitalizing and rebuilding Wilshire Blvd., from one end to the other. Since then, the Mayor has lost interest, Greuel is now the City Controller, Robinson retired in frustration and works for LA County, and anyone who travels on Wilshire Blvd. does so at their own risk.

• As of last week, the city council continues to debate Wilshire Blvd., finally deciding to avoid making a decision until they had seen more reports and studies. Meanwhile, LA residents pay an average of $746 per vehicle in repairs per year as the result of damages from potholes and road debris.

4) The City of LA’s failure to complete projects and then invoice the federal and state authorities disqualifies us from funding cycles. City staff engage in the “sister agency” turf war that screams of the inefficiency of having such redundancy. The LADOT has two projects still open under a Cooperative Work Agreement (fund extension) which makes the whole city ineligible for BTA state funds that pay for city projects that improve safety and convenience.

5) The City of LA qualifies for funding but can’t do the math. When the LADOT was at the Transportation Committee to discuss plans for its share of the Metro’s “local return” funds, the numbers being discussed were based on 10% of net instead of 10% of gross. I pointed out the error ($7.3 million over 5 years) and it was corrected.

LA’s City Council has an obligation to protect the city’s assets and to the deliver city services. The Great City priorities of Public Safety, Public works, Public Health, and Public Education depend on an honest, open and transparent accounting of our funds. It continues with the responsible management of our funds and it moves forward with oversight and accountability.

As for today, it’s incumbent on the city council to “cash the check” and put city staff to work repairing our streets and delivering city services.

(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 - Ballot Measure for Measure: City Hall’s cry for help!

CityWatch, Feb 8, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 11

It’s Ballot Measure season in LA and the voter information pamphlet is out, dedicating 90% of its 136 pages to the ten ballot measures that City Hall promises will provide everything from pension reform to clean elections to DWP oversight. If only it were that easy!

On the one hand, it’s unfortunate that the people of LA have to step up to resolve the turf war between the City Council and the DWP, to do the work of those we send to City Hall on our behalf. On the other hand, it’s a powerful moment for the people of LA, one where it becomes abundantly clear that the journey to full accountability and oversight at City Hall is our responsibility.

As for the Ballot Measures:

I’m voting YES on Measure G, which will provide $173 million in savings to the City of LA for every 1000 new cops and firefighters hired. While I’m in favor of pension reform, this measure is no more than a tepid step in the right direction, but it is a step.

I’m voting YES on Measure H, which will restrict campaign contributions from contractors and increase the Matching Funds Trust Fund. Again, I’m in favor of election reform but this measure is only a small step on a long journey.

I’m voting YES on Measure I, establishing the Office of Public Accountability and a Ratepayer Advocate. This is a huge victory for the people from the community who have fought so hard to bring oversight and accountability to the DWP and to City Hall. A small and diluted first step, but an important one.

I’m voting YES on Measure J, requiring the DWP to communicate its budgets and anticipated surplus transfers with the City Council on a timely basis. Responsible management of city assets should be de rigueur but given the turf war that roils in City Hall, it’s apparently now up to the people to demand accountability and oversight.

I’m voting YES on Measure L, providing incremental increases in funding for our libraries. I’m pleased that the people of LA have the opportunity to position libraries as an element of our Great City mandate but know that the work has just begun and that we must work together to prevent “cost recovery” from diminishing any funding increases.

I’m voting YES on Measure O, levying a $1.44 per barrel tax on oil extracted from the estimated 55 known oil fields in the LA area. At less than 2% of the current $80 per barrel, this seems like a minimal and fair amount from the oil companies that are enjoying record levels of profits. In fact, it’s kind of shocking that it took this long or that the tax is so low. (5% proposed for med marijuana but only 1.8% proposed for crude oil?)

I’m voting YES on Measure P, requiring the City of Los Angeles to establish an Emergency Reserve Account within the City’s Reserve Fund. While it’s important to plan for emergencies, it’s unfortunate that it takes a Charter Amendment to ensure fiscal responsibility. Again, this is a small step in what amounts to be a long journey to budgetary responsibility.

I’m voting YES on Measure N, cleaning up Campaign Finance language in Charter to comply with recent court decisions and to ensure that the City of LA is conducting its elections in compliance with the law. I am in favor of election reform but not when it violates the law.

I’m voting YES on Measure Q, again cleaning up Charter language that addresses personnel and employment issues, sometime requiring cumbersome processes that include certifying candidates for jobs that don’t exist. This is a necessary process that should be addressed systemically, not piecemeal, but it is a step in the right direction.

I’m voting NO on Measure M, a tax levied authorized on marijuana collectives while “recognizing that the sale of marijuana is illegal?” LA’s City Council seems hell-bent on incurring legal fees with moves such as this. Declaring something illegal and then taxing it sets a bad precedent. Approaching medical as medicine and cooperatives as non-profits and then taxing them sets a bad precedent. This is an invitation for litigation that LA can’t afford.

The March 8th Ballot Measures are a cry for help from LA’s City Council. Their turf war, their inability to solve the budget crisis, their inability to simply fund libraries (as is their responsibility), has become the people’s work. In essence, these ballot measures are a clear demonstration of the City Council’s legacy of failure.

At the same time, the March 8th Ballot Measures are an opportunity for the people of Los Angeles to take a powerful step in the right direction, one where Pension Reform, DWP oversight, funding commitments and clean elections are the goal that we work toward. With the understanding that, if passed, there is still much oversight to be done … making sure that the ordinances that follow provide the detail the people asked for and that the city’s electeds fulfill the promise these ballot measures intend.

(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.)

CityWatch - Here Are the Rules for an NFL Stadium in the City of Greatness

CityWatch, Feb 4, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 10

Los Image Angeles is one of the best places in the world to live, to work, and to enjoy life. Every day people from around the world travel to LA to experience our greatness and in doing so, they remind us that LA is the city that sets the standards.

From the entertainment industry to the theatre community, from the philharmonic orchestra to the museums, from our rich arts & culture to our championship athletic teams, LA is the Capital of Greatness!

Against that backdrop, it makes sense to ask “Why don’t we have a National Football League team?”

It’s certainly within LA’s vision for greatness to welcome private developers who want to invest in a beautiful state-of-the-art football stadium and contribute to an enhanced convention center as part of the ongoing revitalization of downtown LA.

Accessible by the Metro, convenient to Angelenos from all over the city, adding to the vibrant LA Live attractions, a football stadium could have a tremendous positive impact on Los Angeles.

However, for this scheme to move forward, I contend that these standards must be met:

1. The vision must be clearly articulated. Great cities are built on a foundation of Public Safety, Public Works, Public Health and Public Education. The Farmers Field press conference took place with Mayoral cheerleading while the streets in Van Nuys were collapsing and homes were being evacuated.

LA’s vision for moving forward must be based on resolving the budget crisis, delivering city services, responsible land use policy that protects the people who live here, and great sports and entertainment that enrich the lives of the people who partner in LA’s greatness.

This vision must end the typical “either/or” propositions that the Mayor and the City Council have made de rigueur in these types of proposals. It’s time for the City of LA to commit to win/win proposals and to remember that this is Los Angeles, the NFL wants us, the developers want us, the world wants us. We’re in a powerful position and our responsibility is to set the standard, not lower it.

2. The plan must get very specific very quickly. LA’s Farmers Field is already drawing the same criticism that was leveled at the ‘84 Olympics when in the planning stages. Opponents were fearful of issues such as traffic congestion and financial risk, but LA proved to be a champion.

The ‘84 Olympics in Los Angeles brought out the best in everybody, setting an Olympic standard for operations in business model, in profits, and in traffic congestion relief. LA’s ATSAC went online for the ‘84 Olympics, setting a standard for traffic control.

Peter Ueberroth took to the air in a helicopter on opening day to survey the traffic meltdown and discovered that traffic was actually lighter than usual. This was the first privately financed Olympic Games and it resulted in a surplus of $250 million. The standard has been set.

The plan for LA’s Farmers Field stadium must unfold with a full commitment to meeting stringent environmental impact, social impact, and economic impact standards that actually raise the bar, not lower it. The current murmurings indicate that the sheer size of this project is causing momentum that not only cuts red tape but also cuts through regulatory controls that protect the people of Los Angeles.

The plan for LA’s Farmers Field must start with a standard of excellence, the same excellence that we will expect from the NFL team that plays in Farmers Field, and apply it to every element of the proposed stadium and convention center enhancements.

Now is the time to set a world-class standard for solid investor-driven funding, for sustainable construction and operation, for connecting with the community and enriching the lives of the people of LA. After all, when LA gets it together, LA does great things.

3. The budget must be a real budget, not a press conference budget. While the Mayor and the cheerleading squad were doing cartwheels over the $700 million commitment from Farmers, the fact that the city is penciled in for $350 million in bond guarantees slid right past.

Now is the time for the City of Los Angeles to establish a standard for sound financial behavior, not budgetary window dressing and sound bite accounting. Most of all, this budget must demonstrate clearly that the City of Los Angeles is not contributing to this financial proposition, but is indeed committed to benefiting financially.

This budget must reflect municipal pride in the City of Los Angeles, not desperation. This is Los Angeles! The world needs us, the world wants us! It is an abdication of responsibility if the Mayor and the City Council allow the price of AEG’s admission to drop simply because they get all excited over an autographed football and promises of VIP seats in the Farmers Field Skybox.

The budget must demonstrate clearly that the City of LA will benefit in the profits, that we will come out of the deal as winners, and that we will not in any way, shape or form subsidize the developers of Farmers Field or the future owners of LA’s NFL team.

4. Ultimately, it’s got to work for everybody and we’re already off to a bad start. A deal that has been brewing for two years hits daylight with a ticking clock. This is the City Hall behavior that must stop. Now is the time to firmly establish an open and transparent process that becomes the standard for all that we do. This is not “punting” on a decision, it is simply engaging in the business of running a city by acting like adults, while avoiding the seduction of the Skybox.

The Farmers Field proposal should prevail if it can meet the high standards of excellence that we set. At the same time, it should fail if it relies on variances, subsidies and exceptions.

Ultimately, the future of Farmers Field and LA’s NFL team must be judged based on results, often harsh but always fair. That’s how the game is played.

In many ways, this is a great idea but it comes along at a really bad time. The Mayor and the City Council must focus on city solvency, on the delivery of city services, on responsible land use, on education, on protecting our charter commitments to libraries and parks and arts & culture and the needs of those who are most vulnerable such as our children, our seniors, our disabled.

Through it all, it’s always a bad time to do hard work, but our commitment to greatness demands that we allow the developers and the investors to hit the high LA standards, creating a win-win situation that benefits us all.

It’s important to note that the AEG seduction is in play, that AEG is engaged in an end-run on the starstruck City of LA, heading for Sacramento in an effort to lower the environmental standards and gain inappropriate exceptions.

LA’s Mayor and our City Council have an obligation to serve the people of LA and to protect this city from developers who seek to lower our standards.

That being said, let’s partner in greatness!

(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.)

LA’s CRA turns gold into straw - a view from the street

CityWatch, Feb 1, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 9

When Governor Brown met with Mayor Villaraigosa to debate the future of LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency, the meeting took place in the well-appointed digs of the State Capitol, surrounded by a formidable security force.
When the people in my neighborhood gathered to discuss LA’s CRA, the meeting took place on a busted sidewalk, outside the now empty five-story Gershwin Hotel, across the street from an empty lot surrounded by chain link fencing and graffiti. Security was a courtesy provided by the Department of DIY.

The Governor’s plan to phase out approximately 400 redevelopment agencies throughout the state and to return the revenue stream to local authorities for use in the community has prompted LA’s CRA to scramble in an effort to squirrel away $930 million of public money.

LA’s CRA contends that they have done good work resulting in a catalytic economic and social impact on the community. That may be true in the sense that building a development for $600 million and then selling it for $200 million has a catalytic impact on the CRA’s political cronies.

LA’s CRA argues that the redevelopment projects create jobs and stimulate the economy. That my be true in the sense that bulldozer operators have been busy razing buildings that have fallen victim to the CRA’s “induced-blight” scheme but not for the business owners and employees who have lost jobs through eminent domain.

Jean Ros, founding executive director of the California Budget Project challenges the CRA’s claims saying "The research shows that redevelopment doesn't give us the bang for the buck we need in these economic times."

The Public Policy Institute's study "Subsidizing Redevelopment in California" compared 114 different redevelopment project areas statewide to similar areas without redevelopment. It concluded that redevelopment agencies were not responsible for any net economic growth and that they were being financed at the expense of local schools and public services.

As for local data on the systemic effectiveness of LA’s CRA, Jim Dantana, Deputy to CRA’s CEO Chris Essel, acknowledged that there is no real data to support either side of the argument.

Last week, California State Controller John Chiang launched an audit of 18 redevelopment agencies around the state to get to the bottom of the debate over whether they're "engines of local economic and job growth or are simply scams providing windfalls to political cronies."

While many argue that we simply don’t have the evidence, it’s not quite true. As LA’s City Controller Wendy Greuel warily dips her toe in the audit waters, the simple fact is, she’s late to the game. The audits have been performed, 11 years ago by then-City Controller Rick Tuttle and 5 years ago by then-City Controller Laura Chick.

Meanwhile, on the streets of Hollywood, locals are left with the anecdotal evidence that the CRA’s presence can have a chilling impact on the community, one that results in businesses closing, residents leaving, buildings falling into disrepair, public nuisance abatements and...bulldozers.

The suspicion that the presence of the CRA not only induces blight but actually discourages the investment and participation of long term small business operators was most recently confirmed when Glendale hotel owner Ray Patel refused to sell his property to developer Rick Caruso, only to find himself facing an eminent domain action that will allow the American to expand using his land.

Matt Middlebrook, former Deputy Mayor in LA to then-Mayor Hahn and current frontman for developer Rick Caruso, defended the aggression and explained that Patel had no right to resist the seizure, after all, “Patel (hotel owner) knew a decade ago that he was buying a business inside a redevelopment zone. By that time, the city had already used eminent domain to push out small Glendale property owners and make way for other private owners.”

That’s the skewed logic at the core of LA’s “pennies on the dollar” scheme, one where the CRA spends the public’s dollars on projects that wouldn’t pass muster in the private sector, then sells them to insiders for pennies.

LA’s CRA built the Hollywood & Highland Center for $600 million and then sold it to the CIM Group for $200 million. The City of LA then ponied up an additional $30 million to remodel the Kodak Theatre for the CIM in a move that Curbed LA referred to as “Send in the Clowns!”
Meanwhile, as Hollywood’s Gershwin Hotel continues to decay, the CIM Group stands in the wings with a bag of pennies, ready to feed at the public trough on the land and property that has been secured with our dollars, all while the local children stare through chain link fencing at a building that has more broken windows every day, at a neighborhood that continues to suffer. If only the CRA would get out of the way.

(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 - Succession strategies

CityWatch, Jan 28, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 8

My column in CityWatch last week announcing the retirement of Bill Robertson, Director of the Bureau of Streets Services, drew a lot of comments supporting the notion that his departure would be a great loss to the City of LA but with an interesting twist.

Testimonials from the community included EB from Sunland Tujunga, who wrote:

“Bill Robertson is all that Stephen Box says he is and more. I had the privilege of working with Bill on a local project. He and his staff were efficient, involved, knowledgeable, thoughtful and creative.

Shortly after the Sunland Tujunga NC was established, Bill came personally to our Land Use Committee meeting to discuss how we were going to handle the repairs in our sadly deteriorating neighborhood roadways.

I attended one of his workshops on "How to handle LA's sidewalks or the lack of them! Once again, he proved how logical and practical he is.

I would be delighted to stump for him if he would run for Mayor.”

Testimonials from the inside included this comment from JF who wrote:

I want to congratulate you for the wonderful article you wrote about Bill Robertson. I am a friend of his and your comments were right on.

He will be missed but thankfully he has two very talented assistant directors that can continue to run the Bureau of Street Services as best as possible in these difficult times.

Typical retirement accolades review the past and shower praise on performance but those who know Bill Robertson reflected a unique perspective, one that falls into the “He’s so good, you won’t know he’s gone!”

In looking back over the last few months, I realized that Robertson had been uncharacteristically missing from some key meetings, a strategy that I now realize was part of his leadership development strategy.

At the Mayor’s Summit in August, I sat next to Nazario Sauceda in a room filled with Department Managers and assumed that Robertson’s absence was due to schedule conflicts but I now realize that Robertson was busy replacing himself.

At the last meeting I attended at the Bureau of Street Services, I was greeted at the door by Robertson who then disappeared and left Sauceda and Ron Olive in charge. Again I attributed it to a scheduling conflict but now I see that Robertson was planning for the future.

Again in December, the Bureau of Street Services held a meeting in Hollywood, the type of meeting that Robertson is famous for attending, but he was nowhere to be seen. In hindsight, I now realize that his influence was even greater than his presence.

USC’s School of Public Policy profiled Robertson a few years ago and declared him an “Exemplar of Politics and Public Management” noting his commitment to relationships in the community, within the department, and within City Hall.

They also noted that his military training has resulted in a commitment to creating an organization that continues functioning smoothly and without interruption, even if the leader falls.

“If I’m gone tomorrow,” Robertson is quoted as reflecting, “Nazario will step into my office, and nobody would know I was there.”

Robertson has been right about a lot of things but he’s wrong about this. The people of LA will definitely know he was there! The best way to honor his investment in the future of LA is to work together to develop Citywide succession strategies that move LA forward.

(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.)