“Mr. Brown” Takes His Act to City Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LA: City Where the Buck Never Stops

CityWatch, Feb 21, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It isn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LA Mayor’s Race 2012: Perry Sticks with Her Campaign Playbook … Jobs, Homes, Mobility, Families

CityWatch, Feb 18, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 14


AIA CANDIDATE FORUM - Christopher Hawthorne, Architectural Critic for the LA Times, is referred to as LA’s “design conscience,” an honor that must be a burden to him as he looks at the empty field to the SW of City Hall or the blighted building to the NW of City Hall or the homeless encampment to the NE of City Hall or the surface parking lots to the SE of City Hall.

LA’s Mayor holds court in a pillar of isolation that is surrounded by the work of agencies and authorities that have no respect for LA’s design aesthetic or LA’s architectural ambitions or LA’s land use standards.

The largest developers in Los Angeles operate independently and with complete disregard for LA’s standards because they have diplomatic immunity. They are the LAUSD, the Metro, the County, the State, and the Federal Government.

The AIA/LA is convinced that there is an opportunity on the horizon, one that requires a Mayor who can bring unity to the many agencies and authorities who have a piece of the city, uniting them in an urban design commitment so that LA’s architectural community can deliver on their mandate to make our city more beautiful, livable, and economically robust.

Bill Roschen, President of LA’s Planning Commission, joined Hawthorne in moderating the first of five Mayoral Candidate Forums this past Friday night, taking Councilwoman Jan Perry through a series of topics that included civic engagement, mobility, mega-projects, the demise of the CRA and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s legacy.

Perry artfully navigated the discussion that included third-rail topics such as parking maximums, density bonuses, High Speed Rail, and Streetcar assessments. In a room full of New Urbanists and Shoupistas, it would have been easy to play to the crowd but Perry stayed true to her playbook, holding up her record as evidence of her commitment to livable communities.

Perry was challenged to articulate her vision and her plan for making it happen and she didn’t skip a beat, stating confidently “I put people to work, I produce homes they can afford, I give them mobility options, I create neighborhoods where they can raise families, where their kids can attend good schools, and where they can enjoy the quality of life they deserve.”

In lieu of offering a plan for making it happen, Perry simply pointed at her track record, from her days as a Planning and Land Use Deputy early in her public service career to her recent accomplishments funding large projects and building parkletts.

The audience was equal parts professional architects, city staffers, and community activists. Roschen and Hawthorne spent the bulk of the time leading Perry through a series of architecture, urban design, and land use policy questions that allowed her to position her legacy as evidence of her architectural street cred.

In a clear demonstration that lofty architectural philosophy and vision get lost in the curbside details, the first “question” from the audience came from architectural icon Dion Neutra who simply couldn’t get over the fact that the LAPD’s Deaton Hall was built without any vehicle parking. He is a colorful character and his rant was entertaining, but it also seriously gave proof to the simple fact that lofty visions don’t resonate with the community when people live in neighborhoods that don’t work.

The next speaker also had a non-question related to a specific affordable housing project being developed with public funds in a community that didn’t want it on a street that couldn’t hold it and an economic environment that couldn’t sustain it. Another colorful character with an entertaining rant, offering more evidence that the people of LA can’t follow the vision if they feel they’re being misled.

In spite of the large number of credentialed professionals in the audience, the questions continued to nail the topics that prevent visions from soaring; “Dude, where’s my green space?” followed by “I see tons of dogs but no place to pee!” leading to “Seriously, what’s up with Pershing Square?”

From high altitude goals of architectural beauty to wonky land use policy to walkable streets that simply feel good, the AIA/LA Mayoral Candidate Forums promise to demonstrate that for all the talk, the walk starts with a simple conversation about LA and how it looks and how it feels!

There are four more AIA/LA Mayoral Candidate Forums taking place over the next four Friday evenings. Austin Beutner is scheduled for Friday, February 24, followed by Kevin James on March 2.

Watch the entire Jan Perry forum here & continue here. Or, check out highlights that feature Perry’s comments on the demise of the CRA and the potential of Neighborhood Councils.

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

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

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

CityWatch, Feb 17, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LA Neighborhood Councils: The Evolution of the Revolution

CityWatch, Feb 14, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 13

TURNING THE POWER ON - Several blind men are asked by their King to examine an elephant and then to describe its appearance.

The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a giant fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.

The King, in his infinite wisdom, informed the blind men that they were all correct in their evaluations, although their observations were limited to their individual experiences.

Those same blind men, if asked to visit different neighborhood councils, would probably come back with a wide variety of experiences, all of them true but typically limited in accuracy.

The first man might experience a social group, one that is focused on creating community. The second man might discover a local enforcement authority, intent on upholding codes and laws in the neighborhood. The third man might experience a de facto planning commission, focused on land use issues and parking requirements. The fourth man might find himself in the midst of a beautification society, focused on landscaping and gardens. The fifth man might find himself in an empty room, victim of bad outreach and erratic scheduling.

The last blind man might find himself in the midst of a crowd, surrounded by empowered neighbors who were united in their commitment to monitor the deliver of city services, to meet with city leadership, to advise the Mayor and City Council, and to involve the community in the civic engagement process.

The King, in his infinite wisdom, might acknowledge the truthfulness of each man’s experience, but if he was a fan of Charter Reform, he would take note of the sixth man’s experience and ask the crowded neighborhood council how it was that they were able to keep focused on civic engagement and neighborhood empowerment.

It has been ten years since the first neighborhood councils were certified and the last decade has been a series of uphill battles for relevance, many of which take place as if the City Charter wasn’t clear on their purpose.

The purpose of neighborhood councils, as defined in the City Charter, is “To promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

The Charter goes on to explain that, “Neighborhood councils shall include representatives of the many diverse interests in communities and shall have an advisory role on issues of concern to the neighborhood.”

Lest there be any confusion over priorities, the Charter identifies and prioritizes two areas of responsibility, the city’s budget and the delivery of city services.

As the City of LA prepares to engage in another round of budget triage, calling into question each department’s function and performance, it is imperative that neighborhood councils get in touch with their City Charter mandate and evaluate themselves accordingly.

For the neighborhood councils who wish to enhance their ability to engage their community and make their government more responsive to local needs, help is on the way.

On Thursday the 23rd of February, the Center for Non-Profit Management will be partnering with Empower LA in a dynamic training workshop that will focus on strategies and techniques for effective neighborhood council advocacy.

Participants will leave with a plan for turning their Neighborhood Council board into a powerful advocate when dealing with City of LA agencies, departments, committees, commissions and elected officials.

Community leaders will:

• Learn ways to achieving goals as a group
• Discuss a plan of action around your top priorities
• Hear success stories from Neighborhood Councils who are making an impact

Date:
Thursday, February 23, 2012

Time:
5:30pm-8:30pm

Location:
Center for Nonprofit Management - California Endowment Building
1000 N Alameda Street,
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Agenda:
5:30-6:00pm - Registration, Refreshments
(Dinner available for purchase - $10)
6:00-8:30pm - Program and Panel

Reserve your seat today at:
www.surveymonkey.com/s/MakinganImpactTraining

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

City Hall: All Motions, No Action

CityWatch, Feb 10, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are small examples of a larger problem.

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

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

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

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

Time to Implement a Competency Test for City Hall

CityWatch, Feb 7, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 11

RETHINKING LA - The City of LA is preparing to engage in another round of budget triage, an annual charade that more closely resembles Three Card Monte than an actual commitment to accountability, performance, and delivery of city services. As the Mayor’s cost recovery mandate continues to reward departmental gouging of the public, the issue of competent performance continues to fall by the wayside. In fact, it appears that competency has been defined as the ability to generate revenue and justify staff positions, not to actually improve the quality of life in LA or deliver services more efficiently.

I offer a few examples.

1. As communities vie for Safe Routes to School funding, federal and state money that is meant to improve our communities so that it is safer for kids to walk and ride to school, the LADOT staff responsible for the process is unaware of the actual laws governing the process of crossing the street on foot.

To hear LADOT transportation engineers repeat jaywalking mythology while demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge for the law is confirmation that the people in charge do not have the necessary competency to perform their duties.

2. As bond money is spent building police and fire stations throughout the city, those in positions of oversight have deep pockets and a commitment to job security, priorities that are at odds with efficient and effective management of the building programs.

To hear BOE engineers defend their building code violations by referring to their “Cliff Notes” summary version of the building code is confirmation that those in charge are comfortable with their limited knowledge of the code and an expensive “do over” approach to construction and code enforcement.

3. As transportation funds are spent repairing our streets, the Bureau of Street Services and the Department of Transportation continue to trip over each other, first striping the streets and then covering them with a slurry seal, demonstrating a systemic inability to manage multi-departmental projects.

To hear LADOT and BSS staff explain their Tower of Babel approach to squandering public funds while undoing each other’s work is to hear a strong case for departmental consolidation and a commitment to competent leadership that is judged based on results.

4. As the debate over fences disrupts neighborhoods, an appeal to the General Manager of City Planning elicited a feeble sidestepping that included a plea of ignorance, “short of changing the LAMC, I cannot waive the fence requirements.”

To hear a veteran zoning professional profess ignorance of a decade old provision for Over Height Fence Districts is to hear a claim of incompetence, especially disturbing because it came in response to a plea for help from a group of community members.

5. As our elected officials take the oath of office, they swear to uphold the law of the land, apparently unaware that the oath includes federal and state law.

To hear the City Attorney advise the City Council that local legislation trumps state law is to witness a defense of incompetency as a substitute for upholding the law of the land.

The people of LA deserve a City Hall that is committed to competent performance but there is no process for evaluating outcomes or challenging performance.

As the Mayor engages the public in the budget survey process, asking for feedback on the delivery of city services, it is incumbent on him to demonstrate how he will evaluate performance.

Most importantly, especially in light of the rumor that these evaluations have already taken place and are simply gathering dust, the Mayor must produce a plan for separating the wheat from the chaff, the performers from the incompetent, the people who are moving LA forward from those who are obstacles to progress.

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

LA’s Secret Meeting Habit: Contempt and Arrogance or Just Bureaucratic Malpractice?

CityWatch, Feb 3, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 10

RETHINKING LA - We, the people, have the right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies yet our elected officials regularly violate this right, creating obstacles to public attendance, participation, and free speech.

This behavior may be due to simple ignorance, although it is hard to believe that elected officials, some having been in public service for more than three decades, are still unaware of the Bill of Rights or the Brown Act.
Two days ago, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission was taken to task for convening the body without proper notice to the public of the meeting or its agenda, a violation of California’s Brown Act, also known as the Open Meeting Law.

The meeting was cancelled abruptly, prompting Commissioner Bernard Parks to chastise the Coliseum Interim General Manager John Sandbrook for allowing the meeting to take place without letting the Commission know that simply participating in the meeting could be a violation of the law.

One might suggest that the Brown Act violation is the least of the Commission’s worries, coming on the heels of charges that the Commission has been engaged in secret sessions that address a proposal to give operational control of the financially floundering stadium to USC.

This casualness with the law comes on the heels of the recent revelation that Coliseum officials have given over a million dollars in cash to a union official who was then responsible for the wages of the Coliseum stagehands, all with no oversight and accountability for appropriate taxes, insurance, and benefits.

As the US Labor Department and the District Attorney investigate this and other operational and financial irregularities, the Commissioners fall back on the favorite legal defense of elected officials, “I had no idea!”

LA County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky exclaimed "I was never made privy to, nor informed of, financial statements of any kind that documented any cash payments to anyone."

Whew!

Zev was recently in the news for his attempt, in his new role as the Chair of the LA County Board of Supervisors, to limit public comment during Board sessions, a move that violates the Brown Act and demonstrates his contempt for public participation and free speech.

Keep in mind that Coliseum audits tend to follow media inquiries, demonstrating the value of public participation in the process and transparency in the management of public assets.

As for the Board of Supervisors, Zev recently introduced a motion to revise the rules in order to “improve the way Board meetings are conducted.” If approved, the new rules of order would mean simply participating in the Board meetings could be a violation of the law.

Open Meeting advocates, from the League of Women Voters to Bob Blue, pointed out that the public can’t be limited to general comments but have the right to comment on agenda items as they come up. They also pointed out that the proposed requirement to require speakers to provide their names and addresses also violates the law.

The open and transparent attempt to violate the Brown Act can only be attributed to contempt of the public, arrogant hubris, or complete and thorough ignorance of the law.

Whatever the explanation, it speaks volumes for the environment of neglect that has allowed the Coliseum to flounder while management paid their own companies to provide services and collected compensation from other Coliseum vendors, all while delivering suitcases of cash to the local union.

Typically, when officials such as the LA County Board of Supervisors or LA’s City Council are sworn in, the oath of office starts with a commitment to uphold the law of the land. Yet when it includes allowing the public to criticize them or to watch them engage in the public’s business, this oath falls by the wayside.

Miki Jackson and John Walsh recently went to LA’s City Council to speak during public comment on the demise of the CRA, an occasion that drew speakers from all perspectives and offered the City of LA an opportunity to participate in a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The City Council’s Sgt. at Arms, a sworn peace officer in uniform and armed with a gun, informed Jackson and Walsh that they couldn’t hold a sign while they were speaking nor could they even sit in chambers while in possession of the sign.

This violation of the 1st Amendment took place and as Jackson and Walsh left chambers, a member of the City Attorney’s office chased them down and urged them to return, demonstrating that somebody in chambers was familiar with the Bill of Rights guarantee of Free Speech and the Brown Act guarantee that criticism is a form of public comment.

This isn’t the first time that the City Attorney’s office has jumped to protect its client from violating the law.

Simply attending Council, Committee, and Commission meetings typically includes a demand for identification in violation of the Brown Act which guarantees open meetings and the right to participate without identification restrictions. (for those who worry about security issues, go visit the state capital. There is still security screening, they simply don’t require you to identify yourself)

The DWP Commission was well into its agenda when a member of the public entered to announce that the meeting was talking place in violation of the Brown Act because security was restricting access. The City Attorney’s representative jumped to his feet and acknowledged that the DWP’s policy of requiring identification was a violation of State law.

For those that question the significance of a simple ID violation, consider that the public agencies and authorities who are cavalier about such specifics are demonstrating a casualness with the law that typically reflects additional and deeper inappropriate or illegal behavior.

A member of City Planning recently stood next to a member of City Hall’s General Services Police Department and blocked entrance to a meeting of a Brown Act governed body to anyone who didn’t show identification. The city employee assured the public that they were trained in Brown Act rules and city staff reiterated their refusal to allow members of the public to attend or participate in the meeting until they produced identification.

This obstinate behavior, even when confronted by the law, speaks volumes to the uphill battle that the public faces when challenging plans, proposals, policies, codes, laws, and other actions that our elected officials and public employees advance on our behalf without our participation or approval.

The City Planning employee committed a misdemeanor, prosecutable because it took place in the presence of a sworn law enforcement officer. Typically, Brown Act violations require a claim of violation and a “demand for cure” which amounts to a do-over of the meeting or agenda item in question.

LA’s Police Commission also demonstrates a cavalier attitude to the Brown Act, either out of ignorance or arrogance, either way a bad sign for the body that purports to have oversight and accountability for the LAPD as it engages in the business of upholding the law.

Whether it’s your 1st Amendment fight to free speech or your Brown Act right to receive notice of meetings, speak in public, review documents before they are acted on, and simply witness the proceedings without hassle, the City of LA and the County of LA are far from a tradition of compliance.

Whether or not you care about the inner machinations of Coliseum management or the demise of the CRA or the details of Brown Act guarantees to open meetings, it’s important that you stand up for those that do.

Whether or not you care about access to City Planning or the DWP Commission or the Police Commission or any of the bodies that act on your behalf, it’s important that you stand up for those that do.

If you care about accountability in our government, it is imperative that you demand that those who are conducting the people’s business abide by the law, in everything they do.

When our elected officials violate the Bill of Rights and California State Law, they have violated their oath of office and clearly demonstrated that they are unfit to serve.

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

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky talks back

Gadfly Arnold Sachs says he likes to "annoy the board"
by speaking on every agenda item. Photo by Daily News

A public comment of my own

January 24, 2012

For the past several weeks, a lot has been said and written about my proposal to modify the amount of time each member of the public is allotted for comment during our weekly Board of Supervisors meetings.

Unfortunately, much of that discussion has lacked balance, context and, at times, accuracy, thus serving mostly to misinform people about what I’d hoped to achieve upon becoming the board’s chairman in December. As a result, the prevailing narrative has become this: we on the Board of Supervisors believe that when it comes to our meetings, the public should be neither seen nor heard.

The most recent example of this was a lengthy story in Saturday’s Los Angeles Times. Appearing on the front page, it flatly and wrongly asserted that I think “members of the public talk too much” and mischaracterized fundamental elements of the proposal. Inexplicably, I was never asked for my comment, even though the piece was aimed squarely at me. Had I been asked to do so, readers would have come away with a fuller understanding of the issue.

The truth is I wish we had more public engagement. Our huge hearing room is often empty, despite the breadth and enormity of matters the board confronts every week. In this regard, we are not alone. Visit City Hall and you’ll find much the same. Recent coverage would have you believe that we want to yank the microphone on a public that’s clamoring to be heard. This is not the case.

Most weeks, the same tiny cadre of individuals speak on a multitude of agenda items—sometimes dozens of them in a single meeting. Under the current practice, they’re allowed to talk for two minutes on each item and then can speak for an additional three minutes at the end of the meeting on non-agenda matters. One of these so-called gadflies admitted to a Daily News reporter recently that he had signed up to talk on every agenda item simply to “annoy the board.”

Of course, this is his right—as it is the right of another of our regular speakers to participate in this weekly spectacle by repeatedly delivering the same racially-tinged diatribe against undocumented immigrants and reciting the names and addresses of those she alleges, without evidence, of being “gangbangers.”

But under California’s Ralph M. Brown Act, it’s also the right of government bodies to impose reasonable limits on public comment as a way to ensure a healthy balance among all stakeholders in the meeting process. All our local legislative bodies have rules to this effect, including the Los Angeles City Council. In this spirit, and at the suggestion of our County Counsel, I proposed that our rules be modified to give speakers a three-minute block to discuss their agenda items—rather than two minutes for each one—and two minutes at the end of the meeting for general comment.

While this might be a tight squeeze for the small number of gadflies bent on testifying about virtually every matter before us each week, we considered it a fair policy for the vast majority of people who, in good faith, take time out of their days to travel downtown and speak on the one or two issues that directly affect their lives.

Now, we’ve put the proposed changes on hold so that our county attorneys have time to correct misperceptions and explain the board’s motivation to concerned stakeholders as we move forward.
For those of you who’ve followed my time in public life, you know that I’ve been a consistently strong advocate of government transparency—a record that includes, among other things, my successful push to make board meetings available to a wider audience by having them webcast, televised and posted online with transcripts. As some of you may also remember, I authored Los Angeles’ first freedom of information act while serving on the City Council.

So I encourage you to join me at a Tuesday Board of Supervisors meeting and see for yourself what all the controversy is about. You be the judge. Take it from me, you can’t trust everything you read.

Posted 1/24/12

Landscaping in LA: City Hall has a drinking problem

CityWatch, Jan 19, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 6

LANDSCAPING IN LA - As the threat of a water crisis looms on the horizon, the City of LA finds itself immobilized, tethered by garden hoses and irrigation systems to an unsustainable municipal lifestyle that costs money, wastes water, and sets a poor example.

Consider the unintended consequences of the recent Occupy LA encampment surrounding City Hall that killed the turf lawn, prompting Emily Green of the LA Times to declare it a “positive achievement” that provides LA’s leadership with an opportunity to “walk the talk” of a water-wise commitment.

Many cities use the landscaping and maintenance of their municipal property as a teaching opportunity, showcasing drought resistant options to the traditional turf lawn that is neither native nor sustainable.

LA’s City Council, on the other hand, has spent more time debating lawn-watering strategies in the midst of municipal water rationing than it has on setting a citywide standard that would wean the City of LA from its dependency on sprinklers and fertilizer.

In the wake of the Occupy LA “restoration” of City Hall Park’s open space, LA’s Department of Recreation and Parks (RAP) has taken its “restoration” responsibilities on the road, engaging “a large cross section of City professionals and officials, renowned landscape professionals, and the public to solicit a variety of input, concerns, and suggestions.”

RAP has advanced three proposals that range from a traditional “putting green” gestalt to a design that incorporates permeable sidewalks, water reclamation, drought resistant ground cover and decomposed granite paths.

Missing from the dialogue is an option that liberates City Hall from the need to install an irrigation system. It’s not as if the City of LA is a stranger to the notion of irrigation-free landscape design and maintenance.

The City of LA owns and operates the 110 year-old South Seas House as a community center and RAP maintains its beautiful Xeroscape front yard without relying on an irrigation system, resulting in a beautiful demonstration of alternatives to the traditional turf lawn and a dependency on water.

The City of LA is also home to the Charles F. Lummis Home and Garden, an acre of drought tolerant and native plant landscaping that demonstrates our ability to give up the garden hose habit in favor of low maintenance designs that incorporate water reclamation elements.

The fact that the City of LA actually maintains public space landscaping that is free of the need to install and maintain wasteful irrigation systems has not impeded its commitment to labor intensive landscaping choices that squander a dwindling natural resource.

LA’s new Fire Station #82 is being build on Hollywood Boulevard, a huge training facility that has approximately 500 square feet of streetside landscaping, requiring 134 sprinkler heads. The complexity of a system such as this belies the environmental and budget realities of the City of LA.

In fact, LA has a strong track record of designing and building facilities while neglecting to budget for ongoing maintenance, a pattern of failure that has prompted downtown residents to “adopt” the lawn surrounding the LAPD’s $600 million headquarters.

Now is the time for the City of LA to step back and to look at the barren lawn of City Hall Park as an opportunity to set a standard, to connect traditional turf lawn landscapers with training that prepares them for the future, to demonstrate to Angelenos water conservation techniques that are beautiful and low-maintenance.

Los Angeles is home to the Theodore Payne Foundation, an organization that conducts a year round education center in an effort to promote the use of California native plants and wild flowers. TPF has a presence on the streets of LA, appearing at Park(ing) Day LA events and Farmers Markets to demonstrate the advantages of landscaping that is pleasing to the eye while providing a water conservation solution.

Surrounding communities, such as Santa Monica, San Fernando, and Manhattan Beach all operate municipal facilities that are free of a dependence on extravagant irrigation systems and maintenance commitments, also serving as a teaching opportunity that encourages the community to engage in water conservation efforts.

Covina’s library is surrounded by a 3,300 square foot water-wise Native Plant Demonstration Garden that replaced the turf lawn and now captures run-off water for its irrigation needs.

The Crescenta Valley Water District Demonstration Garden offers ideas for replacing turf with California Friendly plants and serves for a promotion for its policy of offering rebate money to residents who remove turf grass from their yards.

Santa Clarita’s Castaic Lake Water Agency Conservatory Garden features 350 low-water-using plant varieties and 1,500 roses, along with instructional signage and classes to help gardeners be water-wise.

LA’s own Pierce College features the S. Mark Taper Botanical Garden, 1.9 acres of plants from the seven major worldwide Mediterranean climate zones, all suitable for Southern California’s climate.

Meanwhile, the City of LA struggles with an artificial dichotomy between what is functional and what is sustainable, a battle that relies on the assumption that City Hall’s full roster of public events all require a turf lawn landscape.

It simply isn’t true and there is a groundswell of advocacy in favor of exploring the full range of sustainable options. Community leaders, such as Sherri Akers and Melissa Stoller of the Mar Vista Community Council’s Green Committee, have formally asked the City of LA to seize this opportunity and to surround City Hall with sustainable landscaping.

The Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council, long active in community sourced solutions to land use, sustainability, and open space issues, has also jumped in with a commitment to help design and maintain a sustainable City Hall Park landscape.

Why then the drama?

Does the City of LA own a warehouse of water sprinkler equipment that must be used up before it can conceive of giving up its water-wasteful habits?

Does the City of LA have an endorsement deal with Toro, one that requires the city to keep riding lawnmowers active in all 15 council districts in order to qualify for compensation?

The time is now for the City of LA to think beyond the putting green, to give up the turf lawn, and to embrace this opportunity as the fork in the road, the one that the next generation will look back at as the defining moment when the City of LA began to actually walk the talk.

Traffic in LA.: Most Vulnerable Angelinos at Risk

CityWatch, Jan 17, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 5

RETHINKING LA - One of the simplest ways to reduce the traffic congestion that surrounds LA’s schools in the morning and in the afternoon is to support children as they walk and bicycle to school, yet the City of LA continues to engage in a charade that’s all talk and no walk (or ride!)

All it would take is to fix the sidewalks and repair the streets that kids walk and ride as they commute to and from school. Add some refuge islands and roundabouts and streets would be safer to cross. Complement that with some speed tables and shared street design and our streets would work better for everybody.

Typically, the debate over the delivery of city services comes with LA’s standard “budget crisis” excuse but in this case, there is significant federal (SRTS) and state (SR2S) funding that can be used to support children as they walk and bicycle to and from school.

Safe Routes to School is administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and there is funding to provide infrastructural improvements as well as funding to address distracted driving through education and enforcement. Programs that educate and encourage parents, teachers, administrators and students on pedestrian and cyclist safety also qualify.

The City of LA is a notoriously weak performer in the competition for SRTS and SR2S funds, not only failing to qualify for its proportionate share but then defaulting when it does qualify by failing to execute the funded projects.

Funded parties are given four and a half years to spend the money they qualify for or they get “red-flagged” and are suspended from further grant cycles until they clear their past projects.

The City of LA spends more time arguing for extensions and exceptions than it spends simply working on the streets, enforcing the law, educating the community, and encouraging healthy and safe behavior.

This bureaucratic traffic jam within the City of LA has resulted in lost revenue and a missed opportunity to reduce traffic congestion and make our streets safer for everybody.

During the last funding cycle, the City of LA failed to even submit funding applications that would demonstrate a citywide commitment.

As if broken sidewalks and busted streets are hard to find!

In the competitive Safe Routes to School funding process, projects that come with community support do better than those that are simply proposed by traffic engineers seeking funding for routine scheduled roadway improvements.

Yet the City of LA has the audacity to set a deadline for community nominations that falls on this Friday, January 20, 2012.

How does the City of LA expect the community to engage in a process that offers no real opportunity for real participation?

Surrounding communities (the ones that beat LA in the funding competition) have formed Safe Routes to School organizations that engage the community in ongoing campaigns that use the funding process to educate the community.

Children who walk and bicycle to school are more likely to reach the recommended goal of 60 minutes of physical activity each day, they will arrive at school energized and ready to learn, and they take an active role in their well-being.

What does the City of Los Angeles have against Safe Routes to School funding and why is it so reluctant to get competitive?

Last year, a group of community advocates took a Safe Routes to School project to the City of LA in search of support and a commitment to enter it into the pool of submitted projects. It was an ambitious project, one that proposed improvements to a busy arterial with four schools within walking distance.

The traffic engineers looked at the project and expressed a lack of interest, advising the advocates to take it to the Council office for support, after all, “We get paid the same whether or not this project gets funded. The difference is this, if it gets funded, we have more work to do.”

The honesty is refreshing but the revelation is contemptible.

To charge the City of LA with a lackluster commitment to LA’s most vulnerable mode share, children walking and bicycling to and from school, is a harsh charge but the evidence stands.

The City of LA’s infrastructure is unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists and the token gestures at improving the walkability and rideability of the neighborhoods around our schools fall far short of a commitment to our children.

The City of LA’s performance in past Safe Routes to School funding cycles pales in comparison to smaller surrounding cities with smaller staffs who somehow are able to translate a real commitment to public safety into great projects. LA, on the other hand, turns in weak projects, complains about “Fair Share,” and then fails to spend the money when it eventually qualifies.

The City of LA is currently in the process of preparing for the State of California’s Cycle 10 SR2S process which comes with a deadline of March 30, 2012. (City of LA has given community members until January 20, 2012 to submit their projects)

The City of LA has two months to come up with innovative and inspirational projects that will not only make it safer on our streets and sidewalks, but that will also serve as an invitation to walk or to ride, improvements that encourage great behavior and bring neighborhoods together.

If the City of LA is unable to come up with at least two great proposals per Council District for this coming funding cycle, perhaps it’s time to look at the Cities of San Fernando, Rancho Palos Verdes, Burbank, Covina and Claremont. What are they doing that LA isn’t doing?

The City of LA has a long history of talking the talk, but when it comes to Safe Routes to School can it walk the walk?

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

Emergencies in LA: Most Vulnerable Angelenos at Risk

CityWatch, Jan 13, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 4

RETHINKING LA - The fastest growing demographic group in America is senior citizens, a simple fact that should be guiding the City of LA as it goes through the charade of emergency preparedness planning, but one that isn’t even part of the dialogue.

The essence of emergency preparedness is based on the notion that in a true emergency, the people of Los Angeles must be self-sufficient, prepared to survive for days without public safety support, health services, water & power, sanitation, access to fresh food, or streets that work.

LA’s Fire Department conducts Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training that prepares community members for emergencies in a series of classes that progress from the basics of self-sufficiency to managing an evacuation shelter to advanced emergency medical skills.

The CERT training instills in individuals a hierarchy of emergency responses that is counterintuitive but essential, starting with protecting yourself, then protecting your loved ones, then protecting your neighbors. It may seem selfish to start with yourself but the message the instructors drill into the student’s heads is “You can’t help your loved ones and neighbors  if you allow yourself to become an immobilized or dead victim.”

The CERT training in self-sufficiency is an extremely powerful experience with applications on preparedness that resonate through other non-emergency scenarios, demonstrating at every turn that the most powerful tool we possess is the one between your ears.

It also serves to dramatize a painful oversight that has the potential to leave our largest demographic group vulnerable and on their own in the next major earthquake or fire or catastrophe that requires neighborhoods to evacuate in large numbers.

Quite simply, LA’s current emergency preparedness instructions for the seniors in our community, many of whom are already experiencing a lack of self-sufficiency, is “In the event of a serious disaster, everyone should be self-sufficient for at least three days without help or emergency services.”

It doesn’t take an expert in Gerontology to see the problem in this paradigm of emergency preparedness. Expecting a demographic group that is growing in numbers while experiencing a decrease in mobility and self-sufficiency in the best of times to suddenly become self-sufficient is simply civic malpractice.

Senior citizens currently represent 37% of our adult population and are projected to make up 45% by the year 2015. It’s estimated that men will outlive their ability to drive by 7 years, women by 10 years.

How then does the City of Los Angeles intend to guide this significantly sized and extremely vulnerable demographic group through the next emergency? By admonishing them to buy a “Go” bag and be prepared to evacuate on foot? By advising those who require assistance in the activities of daily living (ADL’s) such as grooming, dressing, going to the bathroom, and eating that they should be prepared to go several days on their own?

When Griffith Park was engulfed in fire and the adjacent Los Feliz neighborhood was evacuated, the surrounding streets and even the freeway was completely jammed with gridlock traffic. Residents walked out of the hillside community, some carrying a well fed lapcat or lapdog under one arm and a bag of prescription drugs under the other.

This is LA’s plan? Walk if you can, condolences if you can’t.

It was the CERT volunteers who set up the evacuation center at Marshall High School and provided services to those who were able to navigate the dark streets and find the solitary unlocked gate on a huge High School Campus. Other residents who were lucky enough to have friends and family near by, simply walked out of the neighborhood to prearranged pickup points and were whisked away to other neighborhoods.

But this scenario required the residents to self-mobilize and included no checks and balances to ensure that nobody was forgotten.

One would think that the City of LA would be better connected, that there would be some mechanism for identifying those who need assistance in an emergency and that there would be a plan in place for connecting with them.

In the summer of 1995, Chicago experienced a record heat wave that saw the city’s hard infrastructure buckle while the administration of city services simply collapsed, resulting in 739 excess deaths in one week.

At first glance, the explanation is simple, it was too hot and the most vulnerable died. But it wasn’t so simple.

In what was termed a “social autopsy,” researchers examined the factors that contributed to disproportionate numbers of casualties in some neighborhoods while equally physically vulnerable seniors in other neighborhoods survived the heat.

They discovered that it wasn’t the heat the killed 739 Chicago residents, it was isolation in the midst of a natural disaster.

Residents of communities with a strong social network were more likely to reach out to others when in crisis. Neighbors checked on each other and encouraged each other to move to cooling stations before it was too late.

Residents of communities with high mortality rates were made up of seniors who withdrew into their homes, who were less likely to answer a knock on the door, and who had no one to turn to when they were in crisis.

In other words, residents of neighborhoods with a strong “social ecology” survived while residents of neighborhoods that weren’t connected saw disproportionate casualties.

The City of LA has had over a decade to look at the Chicago experience and to evaluate LA’s emergency preparedness plan in the context of “connected communities” and the needs of our largest and most vulnerable constituent group and yet, where’s LA’s plan?

Well connected healthy communities are not only more likely to survive natural disasters but they also experience a reduction in crime and gang activity.

This was recently demonstrated when Mayor Villaraigosa and Police Chief Beck released the most recent crime data, touting the fact that crime rate was at the lowest that it's been since the 50's. The Mayor simply said it was "mind-boggling" but the Chief explained that it was due to good police work and the ever increasing role of the community in public safety.

One would think that these results would prompt the City of LA to double down on its social services commitment but the Mayor and the LAPD seem committed to the continual militarization of the police force rather than to an increasing commitment to engaging the community in the process.

This systemic dismissal of the importance of strong connected communities is evident as the LAPD moves forward with a plan to turn the old Rampart station into a SWAT station rather than fulfilling the wishes of the neighbors who envision a community center.

As for the seniors, they vote in greater numbers than any other age group yet they are forgotten during LA’s annual budget melee, victims of a Mayor and City Council that lacks the political will to commit basic resources to the city’s most vulnerable residents.

“Soft” health and social support services are delegated and redelegated, often falling on the shoulders of those who are ill-equipped or unwilling to accept responsibility. Through it all, it is the work of non-profit groups such as the Assistance League that creates the safety net and holds it together.

In times of calm, on any given day, LA’s police and fire departments respond to multiple calls from seniors who then receive transportation, emergency primary medical care, connection to social services, and safety support.

But...in times of disaster, the LAPD and the LAFD will be completely focused on the larger crisis and unable to respond to individual calls from residents who are limited in capabilities and mobility.

Watching Mayor Villaraigosa at the podium again, extolling the benefits of emergency preparedness, is to watch a demonstration in complete disconnect from reality.

Villaraigosa’s plan is to talk about preparedness while completely abdicating on his responsibility to implement a plan for connectivity, one that will take root now, not when it’s too late to do anything.

Dying young is a tragedy, but it pales in comparison to the real tragedy which is growing old in a city that takes you for granted and doesn’t have a plan for you in case of an emergency.

Seniors tend to live in one of five different housing arrangements, independently at their own home, in a retirement community with some support, at home but with some support, in an assisted living facility, and in a nursing home where physical and mental needs can be met.

If Villaraigosa is serious about emergency preparedness, he will produce five plans for LA’s senior community, demonstrating a commitment to connectivity that will ensure the survival of our most vulnerable yet significant age group.

If he can’t handle the task, it’s up to those of us who are willing and able. After all, we’ll all be there soon.

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

LA Crime Stats: Can You Trust the Spin Doctors?

CityWatch, Jan 13, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 3

RETHINKING LA - LA’s Mayor Villaraigosa and Police Chief Beck have taken the city’s 2011 crime stats on the road, holding them aloft and touting the fact that the crime in Los Angeles continues to decline and is currently as low as it was in the 50’s.

As Villaraigosa and Beck take a victory lap around the city in anticipation of the upcoming budget hearings, Beck humbly acknowledged that LA’s decade of annual crime rate reductions is a combination of police doing their job well and the “informal social standards’ set by communities, a soft analysis that begs the question “Says who?”

Villaraigosa’s exclamation that “The numbers are mind-boggling!” only serves to stir the embers of an old unresolved debate over the factors that play a role in crime rates.

The larger overarching issue is one of simple data collection and analysis within LA’s City Hall.

The City of LA is the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world, and yet we allow City Hall to run itself without the accountability that comes from solid statistical analysis, conducted by professionals who challenge assumptions of causality.

If this seems like a harsh charge to level at the Mayor while he’s still conducting his press tour, consider the fact that the FBI is currently examining, revising and reevaluating its crime definitions, data collection, and statistical analysis.

If the FBI’s ego will allow for introspective analysis and evaluation, surely Los Angeles can ask a few hard questions about the pencils it uses to collect data, the procedures it uses to compile data, the innovative strategies it uses to analyze the data, and the actions it takes based on that data.

If this process seems routine and self guiding, consider the experience of Pfizer, the largest pharmaceutical company in the world. In 2006 the CEO announced to the world that they were on the edge of developing “one of the most important compounds of our generation,” one that would “redefine cardiovascular treatment.”

Two days later the same CEO made a sudden reversal, announcing the termination of clinical trials due to the fact that the drug appeared to be killing people.

Pfizer’s value dropped by $21 billion in just week.

Pfizer’s experience is a clear demonstration of the fallacy of causation, the assumption that the presence of two or more factors implies that one causes the others.

It also demonstrates that even the most skilled professionals operating with vast resources can master the information but still fail to understand the relevant factors or identify any cause and effect relationships.

Trusting the professionals isn’t always the best way to go, as was demonstrated in a study conducted by a cardiologist named Lee Goldman.

Using only four factors, Goldman developed a decision tree that evaluates the likelihood of heart attacks better than trained cardiologists in Chicago’s Cook County Hospital emergency room. Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, offers other examples of the difficulty professionals encounter as they collect information but struggle with decisions over what to discard and what to keep.
ca
While Villaraigosa’s befuddlement is understandable, it is hardly acceptable, especially in light of the stakes.

Even more disturbing is the City of LA’s habit of collecting data as if it was simply fodder for the assumption machine, obligatory elements that were part of an old civic process recipe that continues to churn out the same results.

The City of LA has long held the title of the Capital of Homelessness, yet when it comes to collecting data, it’s a volunteer driven process that clearly lacks the commitment that it deserves.

Contrast this with the work of University of Pennsylvania’s Dr. Dennis Culhane who has used incisive data collection and analysis to identify effective and efficient tools for eradicating homelessness.

Professor Culhane was featured in the 2005 Genius Edition of Esquire magazine as one of the brightest minds in our country for his work developing and promoting long term solutions to habitual homelessness.

As Culhane works with other large cities, Los Angeles continues to use volunteers to collect homelessness data. Critics contend that this scenario allows for overcounts by those angling for HUD funds and undercounts by politicians who are protecting neighborhood reputations.

The City of LA has also long held the title of the Capital of Busted Streets, yet when it comes to qualifying for funds and allocating resources, again, it’s a volunteer driven process.

When voters approved Measure R, the half cent sales tax that would fund regional transportation improvements over the next decade, few realized that the $40 billion initiative would rely on traffic mode analysis performed by volunteers with a vested interest in the outcome.

The City of Los Angeles deserves better than a mind-boggled Mayor in charge of a team that continues to collect data without being held responsible for determining cause and effect.

Rick Cole, while Mayor of Pasadena, used hard data to determine the value of a parking space, its ability to generate revenue that could be invested in the immediate neighborhood, and its role in the regeneration of the local economy.

LA, on the other hand, continues to allow debates over everything from public safety to parking to potholes to be driven by emotion and fueled by fear. Then it gets put through the cost-recovery spin cycle so that it turns into a revenue opportunity for the Mayor who can only express honest befuddlement at he looks at the city adrift.

Meanwhile, Long Beach can analyze the value of a single parking space, its anticipated revenue, the appropriateness of its location and its relationship with the local economy, all from City Hall.

While the ongoing decline in LA’s crime rate is a cause for celebration, the fact that we don’t know why things are improving is cause for alarm. If community policing is a big factor in the ongoing reduction in crime rates, why is LAPD militarizing the old Rampart station instead of building a new community center?

The ongoing budget crisis in the City of LA demands that hard questions be asked of all department heads and of all departments, yet without reliable data and analysis, the people of LA are deprived of an essential and effective oversight tool.

Now is the time for the City of LA to prioritize data collection and analysis in all that it does, from public safety to public works to public policy, and to do what counts while counting what matters.

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

LA’s City Hall: Mired in the Moment … Missing a Vision for the Future

CityWatch, Jan 6, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 2

RETHINKING LA - The City of LA’s ongoing budget crisis has allowed a triage mentality to permeate throughout City Hall, framing the ongoing debate over our future in the negative and conditioning the public to focus on what they can give up rather than what they want.

Each year the Mayor’s office gathers with neighborhood council representatives to solicit feedback on the Mayor’s Budget, a process that typically starts with “Where can we cut City Services in order to balance the budget?” and concludes with “Well, we had no choice!”

Along the way, the public is re assured that the decimation of city departments and the continued restriction of city services are inevitable and acceptable, after all, “We’re in the middle of an economic meltdown and it’s not our fault.”

This results in a commitment to the negative, a focus on the worst case scenario and a complete abdication of responsibility, all of which leads the city to engage in cost recovery revenue enhancements that are predatory and regressive.

If the City of LA is going to weather the current storm of unemployment, homelessness, home foreclosures, collapsing infrastructure, and crisis-mode delivery of city services, it must start with a resolution to get positive.

There are some who have set their focus so low that simple survival is considered a worthy accomplishment but I would contend that demonstrates a lack of vision and a failure to commit to success.

As the current budget process gets underway, it’s reasonable to ask a few hard questions of the Mayor, of the departmental managers, and of our City Council.

1) What successful municipal authorities have weathered the same economic storm that put LA on the rocks and what can we learn from their success?

Hint: Look to the LA County Board of Supervisors and take note of the contrast between the different strategies for prevailing during economic turbulence. The Supervisors negotiate contracts that will work through thick and thin while the City of LA squanders when it’s ahead and issues promises when it’s behind.

2) What successful municipal authorities have increased revenue without inflicting higher fees, fines, and penalties on its residents and businesses?

Hint: Look to Boston and take note of their economic growth, an increase of 4.8% in 2010, and their ranking as the sixth most economically powerful city in the world. Boston has created an “Innovation District” that is designed to bring major biotechnology business to town while LA still struggles with permits for sidewalk dining outside small cafes.

3) What successful municipal authorities have increased efficiencies in the delivery of city services without increasing costs?

Hint: Look to Long Beach and try to find the Department of Transportation. You won’t. You’ll find Public Works and within it you will find people working together on transportation, engineering, street services, etc. You’ll also find funding experts who represent a city 1/8th the size of LA yet when they go to the same funding sources, they ask for five times as much as LA and they get it. They prevailed because they had the audacity to think big and to go to work.

The people of Los Angeles have a right to leadership that is focused on a vision for the future, not simply a deferential survival of the storm, but a strong commitment to highly functional city machine that delivers city services and moves LA forward, confidently and successfully.

It’s time to reject the traditional budget triage and to reframe the debate, starting with the tough questions for the Mayor, the City Council and the department chiefs.

The LA Times took a shot at asking the candidates for Council District 15 some tough questions, but years of service to a sinking ship has left the editorial staff unable to come up with anything other than “Is there anything the city currently does that it should no longer be doing?” and “One more time: Because you acknowledge we have to cut something, is there anything the city doesn't need to do? Anything we could or should cut or leave to someone else?”

Missing from the interviews are questions that address a vision for LA’s future, the establishment of goals for the city and its departments, oversight and accountability of those performance goals, and a firm commitment for establishing outside revenue streams.

Of course, it’s not up to the LA Times to hold City Hall accountable, it’s up to us, the people of LA, and it starts with a resolution to reframe the debate and insist on a positive approach to the future that is built on a Great City vision.

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