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.)

CityWatchLA - Blighted Land Meets Sleight of Hand

CityWatch, Jan 25, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 7

LA’s Alliance of Neighborhood Councils celebrated its 10th anniversary with a rare public viewing of California’s latest addition to the endangered species list, LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). (Video links 1 and video link 2).

Jim Dantona, Chief Deputy to the CEO of LA’s CRA, gave a quick overview of Governor Brown’s plan to dismantle the state’s redevelopment agencies, freeing up the incremental tax revenue and returning it to local municipalities for police, fire, hospitals and schools.

Dantona is nothing if not a charming diplomat but he was fighting an uphill battle that started off on soft sand as he cast dispersions on the Governor’s plan by asking “Can you believe the state?”

Ziggy Kruse, Executive Producer of HNN-TV, pointed out that it’s even harder to believe the CRA, after last week’s Brown Act violating Special Meeting that served a simple goal, to move almost a billion dollars in CRA funds into safe pockets. “How can you engage in a process that excludes the public and expect us to trust you?”

Dantona explained that the CRA staff believed that the state was moving quickly so they moved even quicker to protect the CRA funds. This “punch-first” strategy was referred to by some in the audience as the “unlawful conveyance of funds” and demonstrates the lose-lose behavior of a city that too often works against partners rather than with them.

Dantona is to be commended for performing what he refers to as “piñata” work, and the audience responded by revealing that in many of the city’s 31 CRA project areas, it’s the community that feels like it’s being treated like a piñata.

During the Q & A session, Barbara Broide, President of Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowners Association, pointed out that the CRA’s habit of allowing CRA project developers to include significant billboard placement in proposed projects in order to augment revenues is little more than promoting a “Blight for Blight” scheme. The audience agreed. She urged the CRA to be proactive in halting such practices which advance projects that otherwise would likely not "pencil out" without the billboards and their blight.

Bob Blue, former Chair of the Hollywood Studio District NC, acknowledged the catalytic impact of projects such as Hollywood & Highland but pointed out that building a $600 million project that then sells for $200 million can hardly be construed as anything more than a hand out for developers. Blue argued that if the CRA is responsible for the losses, it should at least share in the profits of any victories. The audience agreed.

Mary Garcia, President of Mid-Town North Hollywood Neighborhood Council, questioned the need to have the CRA stay in a neighborhood for so long, pointing at the Laurel Plaza as an example of blight that worsened with the CRA’s help. It was argued that the CRA overstays its welcome by decades and actually discourages potential catalytic impact from non-CRA developers. The audience agreed.

Many expressed their belief that many projects undertaken by the CRA with significant public investment would have been built without those investments. While some spoke in support of a number of smaller projects underway with CRA support, the overwhelming sentiment of those present was that the Governor's proposal to take a significant portion of CRA funds away from the agencies in order to fund state-mandated programs and services is a sound approach in this time of unprecedented budget crisis.

While the Governor works at the state level, local community activists were circulating draft motions for neighborhood councils in Los Angeles, calling on local support for a call to dismantle Community Redevelopment Agencies and to redirect the incremental tax revenue back to local communities.

As the City of LA engages in a battle with the State of California over a billion dollars of the public’s money, the CRA’s spokesperson acknowledged that there is no data to demonstrate the effectiveness or economic impact of the redevelopment agency concept.

The City of LA’s CRA assault on the people of LA begins with simple violations of process and continues to the siege of communities that lasts for decades.

Any attempts to move forward must be supported by real data, not simple anecdotal evidence, and the people of LA must come first with a process that is participatory and supported by honest and open accounting.

The City of LA’s credibility has been destroyed by stalled projects that blight communities, approvals of projects to politically connected developers of dubious performance history. As developers return to the trough for additional funds to complete projects already approved and funded, the CRA’s scramble to divert funds from essential programs and services is a self imposed death blow.

The City of LA’s ability to weather the current fiscal crisis depends on its credibility. The world is watching, the financial community is preparing for triage, and the people who call LA home have been betrayed. It is imperative that the City of LA put the people of LA first by putting our money where it belongs, in our communities.

(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.) Video credits: Monica Harmon- “Monica’s Digest”

CityWatchLA - Seeing Through the CRA’s Fog of War

CityWatch, Jan 21, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 6

The CRA’s announcement of a “Special Meeting” was the battle cry and the subsequent barrage of agendas, supplemental agendas, and revised supplemental agendas were the weapons in the ongoing war of City Hall vs. the People of Los Angeles.

Last week’s announcement by Governor Brown that he intended to return locally generated tax revenue to local municipalities drew an aggressive response from the City of LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency, demonstrating once again LA’s knack for alienating potential allies rather that looking for common ground.

At issue was Brown’s announcement that he wanted to close nearly 400 municipal redevelopment agencies and return nearly $5 billion in locally collected tax revenue to the general funds of the local communities.

Somehow the traditional cut-and-paste media was only able to reformat CRA press releases and Browns effort was referred to as a “hand-out” that would benefit...gulp...general fund support for police, fire, health and education.

The Downtown News went so far as to say “Brown’s proposal would skim (emphasis mine) $1.7 billion from new tax increment generated by redevelopment agencies across the state...”

Providing balance, LA Weekly was able to discern between mythology and reality, calling out LA’s City Hall leadership for jumping into the Fog of War fray that is standard operating procedure when it comes to moving funds from one pocket to the other, all while claiming that the city is broke.

Just last year, budget advocates were confronted with the City of LA’s $450 million budget deficit at the same time that the CRA/LA was holding a $480 million surplus.

Now that the State of California and the City of LA have an opportunity to connect, to work together to ensure that our budget is balanced and that our Public Safety, Public Works, Public Health, and Public Education commitments are met, the City of LA has taken the money and run.

In many ways the subject is simple, the money comes from the local community, it belongs to the local community, and it must serve the local community.

As the City of LA discusses cutting police and fire and libraries and maintenance of infrastructure, it’s imperative that the process of bringing the CRA into the city family be open and transparent, something that isn’t happening.

The people of Los Angeles will have a great opportunity to discuss the CRA, Brown’s plan for redevelopment agencies, the City of LA’s budget and our financial future at Saturday’s Alliance of Neighborhood Councils meeting.

Vince Bertoni, Deputy Director of Planning, Cary Brazeman, founder of LA Neighbors United and Jim Dantona, Chief Deputy to Chris Essel, CEO of the Community Redevelopment Agency are headlining the Alliance’s 10th Anniversary meeting at the Los Angeles City College in East Hollywood. The meeting is Saturday, January 22nd at 9:30 at the LA City College Faculty Lounge. It’s open, it’s transparent, and it’s your opportunity to engage in the future of our communities.

(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 - CRA, Taxes and the CD4 Candidates

CityWatch, Jan 21, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 6

Before Governor Brown astounded the State by proposing to abolish all the Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRA’s), this writer had sent a CRA questionnaire to the candidates for Council District 4.

The candidates for Council District #4 for the March 8, 2011 election are: Councilmember Tom LaBonge, Stephen Box and Tomas O’Grady. Each has a website so readers can see for themselves the biographical information.

The CRA’s were established after WW II as a vehicle to stimulate urban renewal. No city must establish a CRA, but Los Angeles chose to create one, CRA/LA. CRA’s obtain their revenue by taking all the incremental property tax revenue generated by their projects as well as by sometimes taking the sales taxes connected with their projects.

Bunker Hill, for example, has taken in $717 Million in property taxes for the CRA/LA. Overall, CRA/la has taken in $2.8 Billion; $1.2 Billion in the last seven years.

Because the schools had clawed back some of the CRA money by state statute and by lawsuits, the City supported Prop 22 on the November 2010 ballot which made it unconstitutional for any CRA money to go to schools or to the City’s general fund, e.g. for roads. Yes, the City defunded schools in order to give billions to real estate speculators!

Because the City has claimed that it is broke, and thus, it has to fire personnel and reduce services, the fact that the CRA has a multi-million dollar surplus merits public discussion. Hence, the CRA questionnaire.

Councilmember LaBonge’s response:
Councilmember finally made some written responses, although rather brief.

Candidate Tomas O’Grady’s responses:
Mr. O’Grady made long, thoughtful responses showing an openness which all candidates should exhibit.

Candidate Stephen Box responses:
Mr. Box’s also made long and thoughtful responses.

At the outset I believe all Angelenos should be very thankful that Tomas O’Grady and Stephen Box actually believe in openness and wrote extensive, thoughtful answers, knowing that their answers would be used for an article over which they will have no control. Councilmember LaBonge’s answer were short, evasive, and seldom dealt with the issues. Each reader can link to the full answers to form their own opinion about the candidates’ full statements.

Question #1: Should City Council tell the public about the multi-million surplus in the CRA/LA account when discussing the budget?

Labonge:
No. Instead the councilmember wrote: “The intricacies of the funding mechanism in place are available to anyone who seeks them out, and I will always work to make that information available to anyone who wants it. You can also go independently on-line to the city and CRA websites to find this information.”

Councilmember LaBonge will not disclose the data unless someone somehow knows that it exists and then he will give it to that person who apparently already knows about it. Voters can decide whether finding out the city’s true financial condition should be a Game of Hide ‘n Seek.

O’Grady:
Yes, the public should know. Mr. O’Grady has some cogent and specific ideas how the CRA should provide more detailed information. He gave a lot of thought and research into this matter and I urge people to follow the link to his full comments.

Box:
Yes, the council has the duty to communicate all surpluses. Similarly, Mr. Box gave thoughtful answers and people should also read his comments in full.

Question #2: Do you favor abolishing the CRA?

LaBonge:
No. Councilman LaBonge strongly disagrees that the CRA should be abolished. Contrary to the other two candidates, he did not provide any analysis how to deal with the CRA’s financial impact on the city.

O’Grady:
Mr. O’Grady suggests a new Redevelopment Pilot Project to stimulate development from “within communities” as opposed to having large projects imposed on communities by outside developers. I interpret Mr. O’Grady’s comments to be “Yes” for abolishing the current CRA and designing a new one which achieves community objectives.

Box:
Mr. Box’s immediate remedy is to examine the CRA and its relationship to the City of LA and explore options for immediate action, leading up to a Charter Amendment that would abolish the CRA.

Both Mr. O’Grady and Mr. Box provided analysis of the situation and I recommend that readers link on to their full answers.

Update on Question #2: After my CRA questions were posed, Governor Brown announced his plan to abolish the CRA’s. Readers will have to look to candidates’ web sites for discussions of the Governor’s proposal. There will be much discussion in the upcoming weeks about how taxpayers can retrieve their billions upon billions of tax dollars from the CRA’s.

Question #4: Do you support bringing Kelo eminent domain to all of Los Angeles?

Under Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), a city may take property and give it to another private person for that entity’s personal profit. Traditional eminent domain forbids the property going to another person for personal profit. CRA eminent domain is Kelo eminent domain as the properties go to private developers who reap the profits.

LaBonge:
LaBonge supported AB 2531 which would have brought Kelo eminent domain to every parcel in Los Angles. His response today is that he wants to review the matter with the City Attorney.

He opposes “unilateral eminent domain,” but there is no explanation of what he means about unilateral eminent domain, so at best his answer appears to be evasive. One would think that since he supported Kelo eminent domain, he would have some thoughts to share with the voters.

O’Grady:
While he opposed the secretive manner in which AB 2531 was sprung upon the public, Mr. O’Grady would support a new AB 2531 to bring Kelo eminent domain to all of Los Angeles.

Box:
Mr. Box vehemently opposes expansion of eminent domain powers and would oppose any attempt to bring Kelo eminent domain to Los Angeles. He believes as a matter of principle that the government should not take one man’s property and give it to another private citizen.

Question #5: Since the City Attorney may not investigate wrongdoing at City Hall, would you support a charter amendment to bifurcate the City Attorney into two separate offices (1) City Attorney to advise the City, Council and staff, and (2) City Prosecutor whose sole function would be to prosecute criminal wrongdoers?

Because the City Attorney owes fiduciary duties to his clients who are the City, its staff, and its elected officials including the CRA, if a councilmember confides in the City Attorney, “I want to take this cash bribe from developer X,” the City Attorney cannot take action, even if the councilmember stuffs thousands of dollars into his pocket right in front of the City Attorney. Thus, the prosecutor whom the public believes would be most diligent in protecting it from city hall corruption is legally prevented.

LaBonge:
The councilmember states: “This issue deserves further discussion, study and review.”

The point of the questionnaire was to obtain the candidates’ thoughts so that the voters can discuss, study, and review. This is a politician’s “No Comment” answer.

O’Grady:
Mr. O’Grady’s answer is a thoughtful discussion of the different ways the civil and criminal functions of a City Attorney Office may be structured. Mr. O’Grady seems to believe that how the city attorney interprets the “client determination” issue can resolve the matter, and thus, it appears that he is not prepared to support two separate offices. I do not think, however, that this opinion will necessarily be Mr. O’Grady’s position on the subject.

Box:
Mr. Box supports bifurcation so that the City Prosecutor would be free to address any and all criminal matters which the City Attorney now handles plus being able to handle any and all criminal matters including felonies which involve the city, its staff and elected officials. He also supports Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accounta-bility (OPA) who would assist in keeping the City honest.

Final Words:
Both Mr. O’Grady and Mr. Box provided extensive answers taking the city’s problems very seriously. Because literally billions of dollars and the quality of life for Angelenos are at stake, I hope people will take the time to look over their suggestions. Councilmember LaBonge’s seems to think everything is fine as it is.

(Richard Lee Abrams is an attorney in Los Angeles. He can be reached at rickleeabrams@gmail.com )

CityWatchLA - The Politics of Public Administration

‘Fed Up’ Streets Chief Bill Robertson Resigns: “It’s My Time”
LA LOSES ONE OF THE GREAT ONES

CityWatch, Jan 18, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 5

The bumpy road through LA’s budget crisis just took a turn for the worse as William Robertson, Director of LA’s The Bureau of Street Services, tendered his resignation with the simple explanation “It’s my time.”

Robertson’s announcement is certain to fuel speculation that “He’s fed up with it all!” and he conceded “Yes, I am fed up with it all. But I was planning to leave last year and I stayed on to take my department through the reorganization. Now, it really is my time.”

I’ve worked with Bill on three different levels and it’s from that perspective that I offer my opinion that his departure will be a tremendous loss to the City of LA within Public Works, within the larger LA community, and within City Hall.

The City of Los Angeles has the largest roadway network in the nation which in turn has the largest roadway network in the world. LA is a full generation behind schedule in roadway infrastructure investment resulting in a city that leads the nation in deteriorated road conditions. Research estimates that fully 64% of LA's streets are in poor condition, causing LA residents to pay an average of $746 per vehicle in repairs per year as the result of damages from potholes and road debris.

Against this backdrop of deterioration and disrepair, Robertson has demonstrated a knack for setting maximum performance standards while City Hall looks for the minimum acceptable performance. Some suggest that his military background is the foundation for a management style that is quick to size up assets, focus on the objective, collect data, measure performance, and deliver on his commitments.

LA’s budget cuts have crushed departmental commitments to the delivery of city services and the cost of raw product is rapidly escalating. Robertson responded by implementing a “Cold In-Place Recycling” strategy that resurfaces streets using a single huge piece of equipment that literally eats the street, recycling the materials, leaving a resurfaced street behind.

Less invasive to the community, 25 percent to 35 percent more efficient than conventional technologies, one would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and invested in more machines. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s press conference solutions such as “Operation Pothole” and “Operation Smooth Ride” promote the fantasy that calls to 311 are something more than outrage measurements and schemes to limit city liability to only those potholes on record.

Robertson responded by implementing a long-term sophisticated data collection strategy that inventories all 69,000 pavement sections in the City of LA using an automated vehicle equipped with a computerized work station. It collects digital imagery and uses lasers to capture roadway roughness and rutting data and then the "pavement distress data" is used to prioritize the different layers of service, from emergency repairs to slurry seals to maintenance overlays to resurfacing to reconstruction.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and invested in more machines. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s neighborhood council system was created over a decade ago and department heads still grapple with the notion that the public wants to participate with a more responsive government, monitoring city services and offering advice on the budget. Robertson seized the opportunity to connect with the community, demonstrating a respect for the people of LA and a serious commitment to empowerment.

From educating the public with his “Professor Pothole” campaign to empowering communities with 87 local funding pools, his commitment to civic engagement is unrivaled.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and supported his commitment to sharing power with the public. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s bureaucratic system is Byzantine and insiders often seek refuge by deferring the public in order to avoid responsibility or liability. Robertson revealed his solution to this problem at a Silver Lake Neighborhood Council Transportation Committee meeting several years ago when he showed up with both senior and lower-level staff in tow. He explained “When I speak, they back me up. When they speak, I back them up. That’s a promise I can make because I lead by example and this is how they learn.”

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and reproduced his strategy for creating a department that moves quickly and with accountability. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

Last year’s City Council budget hearings consisted of every single city department coming before the Budget Committee to defend their budget against the CAO’s recommended cuts. Robertson showed up with a plan for achieving the proposed budget cuts while still delivering city services and keeping his department intact.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and put him in charge of departmental budget efficiencies and performance. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s departments operate as little fiefdoms, fiercely guarding staffing and budgets, maintaining independence and autonomy, avoiding conflict and responsibility, and sometimes competing with others within the city family. Robertson has a track record for crossing jurisdictional lines in order to deliver on his commitment to doing what’s in the best interest of the city, even if it’s not his immediate departmental responsibility.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and put him in charge of silo busting. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

Bill Robertson is unique in his ability to balance politics with public administration, always avoiding the “either/or” solutions that are so prevalent in our community.

He has demonstrated a knack for navigating City Hall, for training strong leaders, and for working with the people of Los Angeles, not against them.

Through it all, he maintained his commitment to the Bureau of Street Services and to implementing innovations and technology, all while creating an organization that benefits those within, those in the community, and those at City Hall.

Acknowledging that LA’s budget crisis, impending service cuts, sale of assets, threats of layoffs and battle with the state over redevelopment funds might prompt people to speculate that he was fed up with it all, Robertson conceded “It’s true, I’m fed up.”

Bill Robertson was a rare city manager, one who did not need a City Charter to tell him that the people of Los Angeles were the priority.

He did not need an org chart to tell him that when trees are falling down after a storm and endangering life and property, professional tree trimmers should get busy trimming trees without regard to departmental turf.

He didn’t need a Chief Administrative Officer to tell him that in times of budget crisis it is imperative to plan for cuts while committing to delivering city services.

Bill will be missed and his departure is a great loss to the City of LA. He was an inspiration to me. Now, more than ever, we need more people like him in City Hall. It’s LA’s time!

(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 - The Politics of Language

CityWatch, Jan 14, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 4

Ballot Measures:
Political Kabuki

It’s ballot measure season, that time of the year when obfuscation becomes a blood sport and Jabberwocky becomes the battle cry!

There are ten ballot measures scheduled for public vote on LA’s March 8 Primary Election and the people of Los Angeles are well-advised to approach carefully and to read cautiously because all is not as it seems.

This claim is backed up by a simple survey of past ballot measures and sleight of hand proposals such as the recent statewide Prop 22 which was positioned as “protecting” local development dollars and “preventing” another State of California “hand-out” of public revenue.

Somehow the movement of local money to the state level and then back to local schools and hospitals was billed as a “hand-out” while the “protection” of developers at the expense of the community was positioned as a “public benefit”.

LA’s Telephone Utility Users Tax was a thinly veiled plan from Mayor Villaraigosa to preserve an illegal 10% tax by offering the “victims” an opportunity to approve a 9% tax. Several city council members presented the ballot measure as “tax relief” even though voters could have eliminated the entire tax, simply by voting against the proposal.

Somehow an indictment of the City of LA’s court challenged policy of seizing 10% illegally was avoided by offering “tax relief” and discussion was cut short when the city invoked a “218 emergency” which expedited the ballot measure allowing it to pass with a simple majority rather than a two-thirds vote.

LA City’s Measure R from 2006 was positioned as “ethics reform” yet somehow its most significant impact was the extension of term limits for the members of LA’s City Council from two four-year terms to three.

Somehow the promises of “no more free meals” and “no more tickets to sporting events and concerts” distracted the voters just long enough and LA City Councilmembers were given an additional four years to continue the good work of “resisting lobbyists” and “imposing tough reforms on contract bidders.”

Along the way, the public is seduced with “a frank, open discussion” of “community benefits” from leadership that continues to promise to be “honest, effective and accountable to the voters.”

Somehow these promises are offered to the public as if accountability and performance are “going beyond” the minimum standard. Meanwhile, the public is left scratching its collective head in an effort to translate the impending legislation and ballot measures.

Consider this scenario.

A group of Angelenos are walking down the street when they are accosted by a mugger. “Give me $10,000 or else!” he demands. The victims put their money together and discover that they have $9,000 which they offer to the mugger. “But please don’t hurt us!” they plead.

In the language of City Hall ballot measures, the Angelenos experienced “relief” that resulted in a 10% reduction of the original “burden” and the fact that their request to escape physical harm was honored could be construed as a “community benefit” but their behavior appears to be a “hand-out” that could trigger an ethics investigation.

While the scenario borders on the absurd, it is also the basic pattern of “either/or” governance that pits fans of libraries against fans of parks while the disabled and senior citizens compete for budget dust.

Through it all, the clock ticks and “Sell LA” gets underway while City Hall continues the battle cry of “either we give up the crown jewels or we’re firing the staff!”

The people of Los Angeles deserve open, honest, and transparent governance and the most immediate opportunity is with the upcoming City Council driven ballot measures and the full range of options.

CityWatchLA - The Politics of Language

CityWatch, Jan 14, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 4

Ballot Measures:
Political Kabuki

It’s ballot measure season, that time of the year when obfuscation becomes a blood sport and Jabberwocky becomes the battle cry!

There are ten ballot measures scheduled for public vote on LA’s March 8 Primary Election and the people of Los Angeles are well-advised to approach carefully and to read cautiously because all is not as it seems.

This claim is backed up by a simple survey of past ballot measures and sleight of hand proposals such as the recent statewide Prop 22 which was positioned as “protecting” local development dollars and “preventing” another State of California “hand-out” of public revenue.

Somehow the movement of local money to the state level and then back to local schools and hospitals was billed as a “hand-out” while the “protection” of developers at the expense of the community was positioned as a “public benefit”.

LA’s Telephone Utility Users Tax was a thinly veiled plan from Mayor Villaraigosa to preserve an illegal 10% tax by offering the “victims” an opportunity to approve a 9% tax. Several city council members presented the ballot measure as “tax relief” even though voters could have eliminated the entire tax, simply by voting against the proposal.

Somehow an indictment of the City of LA’s court challenged policy of seizing 10% illegally was avoided by offering “tax relief” and discussion was cut short when the city invoked a “218 emergency” which expedited the ballot measure allowing it to pass with a simple majority rather than a two-thirds vote.

LA City’s Measure R from 2006 was positioned as “ethics reform” yet somehow its most significant impact was the extension of term limits for the members of LA’s City Council from two four-year terms to three.

Somehow the promises of “no more free meals” and “no more tickets to sporting events and concerts” distracted the voters just long enough and LA City Councilmembers were given an additional four years to continue the good work of “resisting lobbyists” and “imposing tough reforms on contract bidders.”

Along the way, the public is seduced with “a frank, open discussion” of “community benefits” from leadership that continues to promise to be “honest, effective and accountable to the voters.”

Somehow these promises are offered to the public as if accountability and performance are “going beyond” the minimum standard. Meanwhile, the public is left scratching its collective head in an effort to translate the impending legislation and ballot measures.

Consider this scenario.

A group of Angelenos are walking down the street when they are accosted by a mugger. “Give me $10,000 or else!” he demands. The victims put their money together and discover that they have $9,000 which they offer to the mugger. “But please don’t hurt us!” they plead.

In the language of City Hall ballot measures, the Angelenos experienced “relief” that resulted in a 10% reduction of the original “burden” and the fact that their request to escape physical harm was honored could be construed as a “community benefit” but their behavior appears to be a “hand-out” that could trigger an ethics investigation.

While the scenario borders on the absurd, it is also the basic pattern of “either/or” governance that pits fans of libraries against fans of parks while the disabled and senior citizens compete for budget dust.

Through it all, the clock ticks and “Sell LA” gets underway while City Hall continues the battle cry of “either we give up the crown jewels or we’re firing the staff!”

The people of Los Angeles deserve open, honest, and transparent governance and the most immediate opportunity is with the upcoming City Council driven ballot measures and the full range of options.

CityWatchLA - More Politics of Scarcity

CityWatch, Jan 11, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 3

Induced demand is a powerful political weapon and the people of Los Angeles are subjected to “either/or” proposals with such regularity that the current debate over the sale of LA’s parking assets is just another chapter in the ongoing saga of the impending budget crisis.

As the streets of Los Angeles collapse and another Operation Pothole gets underway, City Hall is quietly moving to sell off income producing fixed assets, this time positioning the “either/or” scenario as “either we layoff city employees or we sell off parking assets.”

OMG!

The City of LA has been moving in this direction for years, ample time to conduct an open and transparent discussion of the proposed sale of city assets. Now we find ourselves racing against the ticking clock (another powerful negotiating tool!) and the City Council is rushing to make a decision while the public finds itself on the sidelines.

Tick, tick, tick!

It seems like yesterday that the people of Los Angeles were slammed with the “9% phone tax” ballot measure, positioned as a reduction of 10% from the then illegal fee that was being collected by the city but also positioned as necessary if the city was to continue to offer the same great service. All was forgiven and the city moved on...towards the edge of the budget crisis cliff. The law was broken but the people forgot.

It seems like yesterday that the people of Los Angeles were offered the “either/or” option of paying more for trash collection or suffering a shortage in public safety staffing. The people of LA bought into the “10,000 Police Officers on the streets of LA” mandate and the trash fees went up but the city of LA was in the middle of a budget crisis and the money was used elsewhere. Meanwhile, police officers are moving from patrol duties to clerking responsibilities, all in an effort to replace furloughed and laid-off civilian employees. The promise was broken but the people forgot.

It seems like yesterday that the people of Los Angeles were grappling with closed libraries, closed fire stations, fee increases, permit increases, shuttered cultural centers, loss of incremental tax revenue, strained infrastructure, and restricted delivery of city services.

Wait! It was yesterday! And it’s still happening today! How quickly we forget!

Through it all, the City Council gets the advice, counsel and support of the City Attorney while the people of Los Angeles get...well...a great view of the proceedings from Channel 35 and the option of dropping by council chambers for a moment or two of public comment.

Typically, in significant transactions between two or more parties, skilled representatives are at the table to advise their clients on the deal, the options and the ramifications of potential decisions.

In Los Angeles, the City Attorney (CA) is busy working more than one side of the table, advising the City Council, advising the CAO, advising the Department of Recreation and Parks, interrupting only long enough to remind the people of Los Angeles that the CA can’t offer advice or support to the residents, “After all, the people of LA aren’t the CA’s client.”

The current brouhaha over the sale of LA’s parking assets is simply another in a long series of one-sided, induced-demand, fire-sale crisis solutions that is fed to the people of Los Angeles who are out-gunned, under-represented, and over-burdened. That must change!

Somehow those deliberating over the fire sale of city assets as a short term solution to a long term problem have missed the successes of neighboring communities where parking income has been leveraged into community enhancements and streetscape improvements, improving the quality of life in their neighborhoods.

Well-managed parking assets combined with park-once valet options stimulate the economy, improve employment opportunities, and result in safer streets, all as a result of embracing parking revenue, not jettisoning it off as a short-term solution to a long-term problem.

While the complexities of parking asset development, funding, construction, operations and management are handled by the many city departments involved in representing the people of LA, one thing is certain; it must be conducted with greater foresight, transparency, accountability, and results.

From Orange County to Mammoth Lakes to the City of Bell, the arrogance of governance without oversight has demonstrated its fatal sting. Now is the time for the people of Los Angeles to demand representation and oversight, starting with a City Prosecutor with enforcement authority.

(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 - Community Gardeners Receive Stay of Execution

CityWatch, Jan 7, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 2

Demonstrating that “cost recovery” should actually involve “a cost,” LA’s Recreation and Parks (RAP) Commission suspended the Community Garden plot fee rental increases after listening to a staff report that acknowledged that, in some cases, the City of LA didn’t even own or operate the gardens being subjected to the fees.

At issue is a Recreation and Parks “cost recovery” plot rental fee that was approved in July of 2010 by the RAP Commission as part of a 70+ page document that flew past the radar of LA’s gardeners until November when RAP staff announced the fee increase at a gardener’s meeting.

The compost hit the fan!

LA’s loose network of community gardens includes the Wattles Farm, operating in sync with RAP since 1975, the Ocean View Farms that was issued a permit in 1977, and the Orcutt Ranch which has been around for 25 years.

Some gardens, such as the Sepulveda Garden Center with over 800 plots, are quite large while others, such as the Rose Hills/Debs Gardens with 21 plots, are more intimate. Some gardens, such as the Expo Center/CSU Urban Garden, are operated as educational facilities while others, such as Little Green Acres Park, are closed to the public and actually operated by RAP staff and grow food as a service for the community.

While RAP’s proposed fees came under the guise of “cost recovery” the RAP staff report revealed that the proposed charges were being applied to gardens that have no costs to the City of Los Angeles. The gardeners at Ocean View Farms operate 500 plots on DWP land and already pay their own water, requiring no services from RAP.

Of the other gardens, one of them is located on Caltrans property and another is located on land belonging to the Army Corps of Engineers.

Through it all, it became clear that the City of LA’s relationship with the community gardeners was quite complicated and varied dramatically from garden to garden, begging the question, “What are the actual costs?”

Crickets chirped.

Most interesting was the survey of the services actually provided by the City of LA to the gardens. In some cases, RAP staff are reported as providing “edging, pruning, and blowing” services, a claim that was challenged as being at odds with the ethos of a community gardening.

At the end of the report, it became apparent that the RAP proposed/Commission approved/Gardener protested fees were inappropriate when examined on a case by case basis and even simply charging for water became complicated with plot sizes that vary from small as 32 square feet at North Weddington to a maximum of 1500 square feet at Little Green Acres.

RAP staff recommended a suspension of the previously adopted fee increases while the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition (LANCC) and the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council (EHNC) both called for the fee increase to be rescinded.

Commission President Barry Sanders wrapped the RAP review of community gardens under RAP “jurisdiction” by suggesting that this opportunity “may be ripe” to create an environment where gardeners can manage themselves. “Maybe the gardeners should rule the roost. That’s something that will require the gardeners to do the work, in terms of organizing themselves and paying the department for cost recovery.”

While the immediate discussion of community gardens may seem to only impact the 1500 gardeners who operate plots in LA, the larger issue is one of simple municipal operations and LA’s bureaucratic confusion over core services, cost recovery, and administrative authority.

It is imperative that this simple “cost recovery” issue be examined in the big picture and that the City of LA stop looking to balance the budget on the backs of the individuals it serves but instead focus on core services, operating efficiencies and an honest accounting of assets and liabilities.

(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 - Oversight and Accountability requires a City Prosecutor with Enforcement Authority

CityWatch, Jan 4, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 1

Angelenos in pursuit of oversight reform are in the midst of an "all or nothing" battle that starts with the upcoming opportunity to create of a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and establish the Office of Public Accountability. (OPA) But both efforts will be for naught if they are not supported with significant Commission Reform and the establishment of a City Prosecutor.

It was increasing public outrage over LA's Department of Water & Power cavalier behavior that stirred a grass roots battle to establish a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) with oversight authority in order to ensure open review of the DWP's operations, finances, and management.

Through it all, public distrust of what Jack Humpreville refers to as "the DWP’s politically appointed Board of Commissioners, its overly politicized and less than candid executive management, and the Mayor and his evasive staff" continued to grow.

It was an internecine struggle over LA's budget crisis that led to a family feud between the DWP, the City Council, and the Mayor's Office. The residents of Los Angeles watched and listened to threats of bankruptcy, renewed layoffs, increasing flotsam and jetsam, ongoing cuts to city services, and the impending sale of city assets.

Through it all, public distrust of what Richard Lee Abrams refers to as "lots of emotional hysteria about lost services, but total silence about available funds" left the Mayor and City Council struggling to explain how a large LA deficit matched by a larger CRA surplus still results in a budget deficit that requires a fire sale of city assets.

The resulting groundswell of grassroots support for greater oversight of the DWP, the City's budget process, and the machinations of LA's Commissions and Boards stirred a stampede as the DWP Commission, the City Council, and the Mayor's office all got in the game.

As the deadline for March 8, 2011 ballot measure drew closer, there were competing proposals for a Ratepayers Advocate, an Inspector General, and an Office of Public Accountability. The DWP's union entered the fray, management and commission positions changed hands, and by the time the City Council was done, the proposed ballot measure had been watered down, resulting in reduced authority and narrow jurisdiction.

While the DWP Reform Panel originally called for charter amendments authorizing a well funded, empowered, and truly independent Ratepayers Advocate as well as an Inspector General, the resulting ballot measure no longer include the authorization of City Council to remove the DWP General Manager and any Commissioner with a two-thirds vote. The Office of Public Accountability will be limited to the review of water and power rates and will rely on the City Council and Mayor to pass ordinances to insure the thorough review and analysis of DWP’s $60 billion strategic plan and its operations, finances, and management.

Still, progress is admirable. It is rewarding and it is encouraging. But the establishment of a Ratepayers Advocate supported by the Office of Public Accountability is a hollow and symbolic gesture unless they are supported by subsequent ballot measures that reform the Commission process and establish a City Prosecutor.

All four elements must exist or the City of LA will have oversight reform that consists of a dog that is "all bark and no bite." The last thing LA needs now is oversight reform that consists of more audits and advice with no authority or mandate to enforce the law.

Those involved in neighborhood councils have learned the hard way that the City Attorney has a client, it's the City of Los Angeles. NC Boardmembers can call the CA's office for advice but not for support if their complaint is with the City of Los Angeles, that's when the public finds itself without representation.

The City Attorney owes fiduciary duties to the City's employees and its elected officials and that prohibits the City Attorney from taking any action against the interests of those people. The City Attorney may not even conduct an investigation that might reveal bad behavior by one of his clients, and if he does get such in formation during an investigation, he must hold it confidential.

Municipal authorities typically address this situation by having two separate offices. The County of Los Angeles has the District Attorney who owes no duty to the County Board of Supervisors while the County Counsel serves the Board and the Supervisors themselves.

In similar fashion, the City of Los Angeles needs two separate offices, one for the City Attorney and one for the City Prosecutor. The City Prosecutor would prosecute all the crimes which the City Attorney now prosecutes plus its jurisdiction would be expanded to cover felonies and grand jury investigations into City Hall.

The City Charter would need to clarify jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor and provide for felony investigations that involve the City of Los Angeles. Cities, counties, states and the feds can have concurrent jurisdiction, thus allowing the City Prosecutor to investigate and/or prosecute cases which involve or may involve the City, a City agency, or a City official. This must take place without divesting felony jurisdiction from the District Attorney or the State Attorney General.

As the March 8, 2011 election approaches and the ballot measure establishing a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accountability (OPA) get the spotlight, it is important to remember that oversight and accountability mean little, if anything at all, without enforcement authority and a mandate for prosecution.

2010 was a great year for the grassroots advocates who fought so hard to bring the issues of open and transparent governance into the marketplace of ideas. Progress was made but the impending success will be hollow if we do not continue the journey.

2011 is the year in which we can work together to move forward from awareness and into the arena of performance and accountability, supported by a City Prosecutor that has the budget, the professional expertise, the legal clout and the mandate to do a meaningful job.

(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 - All the World's a Stage

CityWatch, Dec 21, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 101

Several years ago, my wife and her theatre group participated in a Met Theatre fundraiser that consisted of staging Shakespeare's entire body of work in one continuous, non-stop performance that went around the clock for several days. "As good luck would have it," Enci's company took to the boards at 2 am and with enthusiasm that belied the late hour, delivered their leg of the Bard's marathon.

As the last line was spoken, I stood to my feet and rigorously applauded, offering up a one-man standing ovation. To my surprise, they responded by returning the applause and thanking me. They later explained that it's one thing to perform, but all is for naught if not for the most important element, an audience that connects and engages and responds.

As I look back over this past year and think about the many events and meetings, the projects and the protests, the victories and the losses, it all begins to blur.

There have been inspirational occasions such as Park[ing] Day LA and the Neighborhood Council Summit, there have been challenges to the status quo such as BudgetLA and the Safe Streets Campaign, and there have been the many incidents and tragedies that have brought us together in shock and outrage.

Through it all, members of the public write letters, make phone calls, file Community Impact Statements, and go to meeting after meeting, all in hopes that a couple of minutes of public comment will complement the work of others and add up to something that will improve the quality of life in their community.

There have been times that I have questioned the value of public participation in the civic process. Especially after waiting eight hours for 2 minutes of public comment, only to have the item tabled for another meeting.

Along the way, I've written articles, spoken at meetings, traveled to Sacramento, and appealed to reason, only to watch motions get rubber-stamped with a unanimous and unquestioning vote, bouncing from Commission to Committee to Council agenda without skipping a beat.

I've sat alone in Council Chambers and questioned the folly of the fight, only to experience an amazing and powActive Imageerful phenomenon, the participation of an engaged and enthusiastic audience.

It was during a long City Council agenda and I was about to give up and leave when I received a text message from someone who was listening to the proceedings on CityPhone. They offered some advice, they urged me on, and most importantly, they thanked me for speaking up.

As I walk precincts and talk to voters, I meet people who greet me as an old friend and refer to radio interviews with Kevin James and to Channel 35 broadcasts of City Council meetings. It's especially encouraging to know that at those moments when I'm filled with doubt, there are people listening and watching and counting on somebody to represent them.

Perhaps the most touching feedback I get is from the families of people who have died on our streets.

After Gwendolyn Coleman was tragically killed by a DASH operator as she crossed the street, I received this message from her son; "I'm writing you to just say thank you for giving my mother a voice when no one accountable for her death seems to really care. It means a lot to my sisters and I that even though you didn't know her you still took the time to speak for her."

When Julia Siegler was killed on Sunset Boulevard, her father wrote; "More tragedies like Julia’s are inevitable unless citizens rally to return Sunset Blvd – at least sections of it – into a neighborhood-compatible thoroughfare...Thank you for your thoughtful and upsetting piece."

As I look back over the events of this past year, I realize that the circumstances add up to some victories, some defeats, and a load of stalemates.

Some folks take me to task and sent a message of "There you go again!" Others have enjoyed the journey and written "This is the best editorial written about our city!!!!"

In looking back, I'm grateful that we've connected and in looking forward, I'm grateful for the role that you play and I hope you'll keep reading!

(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 - Los Angeles: A Crisis-Driven City

CityWatch, Dec 17, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 100

If those who run City Hall were to spend more time in the garden, they'd know that it's extremely dangerous to eat the seed corn, something the City of LA is attempting to do in LA's Community Gardens, in Hollywood's Farmers Market, and with the City's Parking Structures.

This past Tuesday, City Hall was inundated with gardeners, farmers, vendors, residents, and business leaders who all came together to demonstrate the delicate balance of connectivity found in our neighborhoods.

LA's Community Gardeners trekked to City Hall to urge the City Council's Arts, Parks, Health & Aging (APHA) Committee to rescind the impending City of LA community garden plot fee rental increase.

Department of Recreation and Parks management was on hand to offer their "turnip squeezing" theory for balancing the budget, one that consists of implementing "full cost recovery" fees without actually knowing the real costs, if any.

The gardeners countered that a simple cost/benefit audit would reveal that community gardens are responsible for many positive impacts that actually reduce expenses for the City of LA. In addition to serving as caretakers for the Wattles Orchards, the Wattles Farmers are responsible for reducing crime in the area. Solano Canyon Garden had a water reclamation impact on an eroding hill. Sepulveda Gardens has an educational component. Ocean View accepts waste product and returns compost to the neighborhood.

Gardeners charge that the Rec & Parks process was flawed, that the plan violates existing land deeds, and that charging fees that exceed costs is an act that is beyond the authority of the Department.

The public left the APHA Committee with this request, that the City of LA rescind the impending fees, impose a moratorium until July 1, 2011 on any fee or permit increases, conduct an evaluation of actual costs and benefits, and embrace community gardens as an asset, not a liability.

At the same time, farmers, vendors, and customers from the Hollywood Farmers Market rallied on the steps of City Hall and then took their case to the City Council, fighting for the survival of LA's oldest and biggest Farmers Market.

The Hollywood Farmers Market has grown over the last two decades, now drawing 10,000 customers each week. Its success allows the non-profit operator of the market to support other less profitable markets in neighborhoods such as Atwater Village, Canoga Park, Echo Park, East Hollywood, Central LA, Crenshaw, and Watts.

Also growing in success is neighboring Los Angeles Film School which now opposes the renewal of a street closure permit for Selma and Ivar Avenues because the market blocks one of the school's parking ramps for several hours every Sunday.

The tremendous irony here is that the Los Angeles Film School sells parking to the customers of the Hollywood Farmers Market, setting in motion a circular battle of dueling successes. The more customers there are at the Market, the greater the value of the LA Film School parking, resulting in a parking lot version of "The Scorpion and the Frog."

The farmers, vendors, and customers who spoke in favor of the Hollywood Farmers Market asked LA's City Council to look at the market as an asset, one that should be protected as the "front porch" for an intricate ecosystem of farmers, employees, and communities that includes the community gardeners at North Hollywood High School.

LA's City Council is faced with a crisis, one that didn't arrive unannounced or without warning. It was simply allowed to fester until it reached the point that 50 farmers and 120 employees approach the holidays not knowing if they would be working in Hollywood in 2011. All because of a debate over parking.

Joining in on the debate over parking, residents and business representatives from LA's Civic Centers stood in solidarity in Council Chambers, challenging the City Council to protect the City's parking assets as a vital component of a vibrant community. Business Associations, Chambers, Neighborhood Councils and Homeowners Groups all railed on the City of LA for its proposed "Parking Asset Restructuring" that would result in the type of conflict that is already jeopardizing the Hollywood Farmers Market.

The proposed "Parking Asset Restructuring" is a City of LA scheme to generate at least $53 million for the General Fund by selling off approximately 9,000 revenue producing parking spaces for the next 50 years.

The City of LA would then enter into a "no-compete" agreement that would prevent the City of LA from providing parking to those same communities. One of the impacted parking facilities is the Arclight, located on Sunset Blvd., just across the street from the LA Film School.

Two things became clear on Tuesday.

First, it's all connected, from Master Gardeners teaching senior citizens to grow fava beans, to high school students learning business in a pumpkin patch, to market vendors bringing life to the streets of a neighborhood, to city assets that support a vibrant economic environment.

Second, as the City of LA squeezes the turnips in LA's Community Gardens, prunes the roots in Hollywood's Farmers Market, and eats the seed corn in LA's Parking Structures, City Hall is demonstrating a short-sighted commitment to revenue at the expense of LA's future.

(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 - The Mythology of "Full Cost Recovery"

CityWatch, Dec 14, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 99

To call the City of Los Angeles "Penny-Wise and Dollar-Foolish" would be an insult to those who are actually good with pennies.

The City's current assault on community gardens is the latest evidence that the Mayor's ongoing "Full Cost Recovery" marketing campaign falls far short of addressing the systemic economic problems that are responsible for LA's current and projected financial woes.

Community Gardeners are the latest victims of the "Full Cost Recovery" shakedown and their plight has prompted the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition to call on the Rec and Parks Commission to rescind a plot fee rental increase of 380% that is scheduled to take effect in January of 2011.

During the most recent Commission hearing, it became apparent that the Department of Recreation and Parks doesn't know what costs are involved in operating community gardens yet it has set its sights on the people of LA and is about to pull the "Full Cost Recovery" trigger. When a Charter Department is unable to account for its responsibilities, its areas of oversight, and its expenses, it becomes evident that all the talk of cost recovery is simply a smokescreen.

If the City of Los Angeles is going to have a discussion of cost recovery, it must start with an honest audit of the real costs of each department and of each service. Regardless of how the "Full Cost Recovery" debate plays out, the benefits of open and transparent operations are tremendous and would provide the first step to real accountability at City Hall.

It has also become apparent that the Department of Recreation and Parks doesn't know what costs would be incurred if LA did not have community gardens operating in different areas of the city. In some cases, the community gardeners provide services to the city by maintaining common space that would need to be serviced by the city if the gardeners were gone.

In other cases, blighted land was cleaned up by community gardeners and their presence results in a public safety savings. Another garden was built as a water reclamation project to save a hill that was eroding, resulting in a public works savings and demonstrating again that the presence of a garden can cost less that the absence of a garden.

If the Los Angeles is going to have a real discussion of cost recovery, it must include an honest evaluation of costs and benefits of LA's programs and services before bureaucrats are able to simply refer to everything as a liability and an opportunity to start dispensing invoices.

Through it all, it is apparent that the Mayor's "Full Cost Recovery" plan is responsible for generating false revenues as city departments charge each other and count as revenue the circular exchange of services and goods that all belong to the City of LA.

The plight of LA's Community Gardens remains to be resolved and the issue is working its way through City Hall. Through it all, the Rec and Parks Commission has directed staff to develop an inventory of assets, an accounting of real costs and benefits, a comparison to the expenses of other cities, and a real analysis of the economic impact of community gardens on the department and on the city.

Community Gardeners are simply fighting for their gardens but in doing so, they have triggered a process that could set a standard for City Hall access, transparency, and accountability that could have greater positive impact on LA's financial woes than any "Full Cost Recovery" invoice.

(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 - Breaking the Law and playing dumb

CityWatch, Pub: Dec 10, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 98

The laws that require the City of Los Angeles to conduct its business in an open and participatory manner are regularly trounced by people who don't know any better or who simply feign ignorance. Either way, it demonstrates a significant need for oversight and reform at City Hall.

The Brown Act, named after its author, Assemblyman Ralph M. Brown, and passed by the California State Legislature in 1953, guarantees the public the right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies that include neighborhood councils, City Commissions, and the City Council.

Unfortunately, the 57 year-old law is not required reading by the very people who are in the best position to violate it as demonstrated by the regularity with which it gets abused.

LA's City Hall is manned by a security detail that requires people to utter the phrase "The Brown Act" in order to invoke the State Law guaranteed rights, an odd approach to public participation, especially since it wasn't too long ago that those same officers were unaware of the phrase. It was the public that insisted that the Brown Act covered the public from the front door to the gavel.

LA's Police Commission is staffed by very polite people who seem completely unfazed by Ralph M. Brown's legacy, again offering the public an opportunity to educate those in charge of enforcing the law.

LA's Department of Water and Power Commission is staffed by City Attorneys who waste no time jumping on complaints and deflecting criticism, but who are completely unable to address the simple fact that the Brown Act requires a do-over if people are prevented from freely attending meetings.

If the Brown Act is violated at the front door, it is safe to say that those in charge are not diligent in enforcing compliance and the public should be diligent about agendas, reports, actions, and participation.

The upside to the tremendous burden that this puts on the public is the simple fact that legal fees are recoverable which means that the remedy or "cure" for the public is a do-over and any legal assistance is recoverable.

The California Public Records Act, (CPRA) also referred to as California Government Code Section 6250, guarantees the public the right to review documents, reports, and other records including digital files, as a fundamental and necessary right of every person in the state.

The CPRA is also not required reading by the very people who are in the best position to violate it as demonstrated by the inconsistencies within City Hall.

The LADOT lists instructions for records requests on its website, rules that are repeated by staff when requests are made. The problem is that they require payment in advance for information that has not yet been reviewed. It's the other way around. Requested information can be reviewed and if copies are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged. But, most importantly, simply reviewing documents does not come with a fee.

The LADOT also says "Please allow 10-14 working days to receive your requested documents. Absolutely no rush orders will be accepted."

The CPRA, by contrast, says "Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor."

City Planning doesn't accept verbal requests, and then when they are put in writing, they must be sent to the correct person or they simply languish in limbo, violating the 10 day window of required response. Apparently "I'm sorry, you've come to the wrong person!" is still an option at City Planning.

The City of LA is not alone in its unequal and illegal interpretation of the California Public Records Act. Both Metro and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are staffed by employees well-trained in the "I'm sorry, you've come to the wrong person!" approach to public service. Typically, locating the correct staffer is enough to make even the most intrepid member of the public simply give up and fade away.

By design? Regardless, it's illegal and once again, the remedy is to correct the situation and the legal fees are recoverable.

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

LA's City Council recently engaged in a discussion of the 1st Amendment and an LADOT staffer pointed out that the 1st Amendment "came under federal purview" and was not the responsibility of the City of LA. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The City of Los Angeles has run afoul of the 1st Amendment on more than one occasion, costing the city significant amounts of money in legal fees and settlements. The City of LA deals with the 1st Amendment on a regular basis, from newspaper racks on the public right-of-way to tourist attractions such as the Venice Beach Boardwalk and Hollywood Boulevard.

A federal judge recently ruled that LA's lottery system for vendor permits on the Venice Boardwalk was a violation of the law and issued an injunction that paved the way for a 1st Amendment "Freedom of Speech" lawsuit by those who were cited by the LAPD.

Another federal judge ruled in favor of "superheroes" who dress up and pose for tourists on Hollywood Boulevard, defending their right to perform and ask for tips as a 1st Amendment guaranteed "Freedom of Speech" issue that was violated when the LAPD cited the characters.

Critics point to the City of LA's inability to train its staff on the Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, and the 1st Amendment as evidence that the public needs to have greater authority over City Hall and its adherence to the law.

Others claim that the City's bumbling over agendas and motions is a smokescreen that prevents the public from focusing on violations of California's prohibition against the gift of public goods, a charge that comes up with increasing regularity in land use issues, or from noticing Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) powerful deterrents to public participation.

Through it all, former Los Angeles councilwoman Ruth Galanter puts things in perspective by reminding us "I used to believe in conspiracies, until I discovered incompetence."

(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 - If City Hall Were Run by Gardeners

CityWatch, Dec 7, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 97

If the City of Los Angeles were run by gardeners we'd have a long term plan for survival, municipal departments would learn to share, we'd spend less money getting rid of water and we'd be a lot closer to becoming America's greenest big city. As the City of LA prepares to levy a 380% plot rental fee increase on its community gardeners, it's worth taking a look at our subtle urban farming ecosystem and considering the contrast in behavior between short sighted bureaucrats and gardeners with a vision beyond the harvest.

Silver Lake Farms touts the success of their long term vision, one that results in soil that needs no digging. Companion plants, crop rotation, composting, and other long term commitments to the soil, not just the immediate harvest, are all behavior that could inspire City Hall. Imagine if LA's departments worked together, looking for efficiencies, committed to the long-term, evaluating success based on the impact to the community, not just the short-term harvest.

The Holy Nativity Church in Westchester has a garden that grows food for churchmembers and the homeless, but most importantly, it is tended cooperatively and is maintained as a teaching garden to share the skills of how to grow food. Imagine if City Hall looked for opportunities to encourage and inspire community members, not frustrate and interfere. Harsh criticism echoed by insiders who acknowledge that the weeds of bureaucracy are choking the potential harvest of public participation.

Fallen Fruit creates one of the most powerful forces on earth, community, by engaging people and introducing them to each other, all as they source and map public fruit bounties. Along the way, a neighbor with abundant lemons will met a neighbor with loads of passion fruit and a community walk culminates with a "Public Fruit Jam". Imagine if City Hall were to get beyond the "either/or" approach to the delivery of services and look for synergies.

Edible Estates took underutilized and completely unappreciated land and removed the turf, reducing the need for water and fertilizer. The host replaced his lawn with a beautiful garden that became the pride of the neighborhood, producing a bounty that exceeded the needs of his family. Imagine if City Hall looked at underutilized assets as opportunities to invest in the future, not simply as short-sighted fire sale fodder.

Urban Homesteaders embarked on a journey that was motivated by a desire for a better life. Along the way they went from making their own bread to growing their own vegetables to raising their own chickens to writing a book on living the sustainable intentional life in an urban environment. For all the talk of municipal sustainability, the Urban Homesteaders have demonstrated that the real opportunity takes place one home at a time, a lesson that should resonate in City Hall as it continues to look for high-altitude solutions to street level problems.

Backwards Beekeepers rescue bees and remind us that bees are responsible for pollinating fully one third of California's agricultural output. Misplaced bee swarms are opportunities to find a win-win solution that is good for the bees and great for the community. Imagine if City Hall responded to "buzzing" with an honest and sincere desire to find a win-win solution instead of just limiting public comment and adjourning early.

Green Streets is one of LA's best kept secrets, one that will allow us to reclaim water and divert it to bioswales and gardens that will put the water to good use, slowing it down and cleaning it before it finally makes its way to the river and the ocean.

Andy Lipkis of Tree People reckons that LA spends a billion dollars getting water and then a half billion dollars getting rid of it. The City of LA could get out of the business of battling over water if it focused on putting its water to good use, an endeavor that would start with green streets and a partnership with local community gardeners.

Sustainable Gardening is an opportunity to teach "Mow & Blow" maintenance workers a marketable skill that is environmentally responsible and economically valuable. The City of LA can pass anti-leaf blower ordinances all day long but as long as homeowners maintain "Mow & Blow" turf, nothing will change. City Hall must support green education and set its sights on training urban farmers, not just planting trees.

Victory Gardens have generated as much as 40% of America's produce during times of crisis and today's economy should serve as a motivation to revisit the benefits of community gardens. The National Gardening Association estimates that a well-maintained vegetable garden yields a $500 average return per year and a study by Burpee Seeds claims that $50 spent on gardening supplies can multiply into $1,250 worth of produce annually.

California's State Capital has a Victory Garden, the White House has a Victory Garden, but LA's City Hall has turned its back on opportunities to embrace the community gardening.

If City Hall were run by Community Gardeners, Los Angeles would take an Urban Farmers approach to Public Safety, Public Health, Public Works, and Public Education. Solutions would last longer than the terms of the officeholders and short sighted plans would find no traction.

Most importantly, Los Angeles would look beyond the immediate harvest, nurturing complementary relationships and investing in a long-term commitment to the future for the people of 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 - Gardening and Other Criminal Activity

CityWatch, Dec 3, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 96

"God almighty first planted a garden. And indeed, it is the purest of human pleasures." ~ Francis Bacon

LA's Urban Gardeners are faced with a tough choice, work small plots on City of LA property and pay a 380% rental increase or work the soil on private property and risk taking the first step toward a life of crime.

The next time you're at Starbucks and you see those bags of used coffee grounds that can be used as fertilizer, stand back. Used improperly, those grounds could end up in a private compost pile, violating an old law that prevents individuals from gathering table scraps from restaurants to be used in a private compost pile. An obscure legal relic that has been enforced in Los Angeles against a private gardener.

The next time you're in your neighborhood and you see a talented gardener teaching community members, stand back. Passing on knowledge at a residence can be construed as running a home based business with guests that exceed the limit of one per hour. Tupperware parties are acceptable but teaching people to grow food that will go into the Tupperware containers violates another obscure legal relic. It has been enforced in Los Angeles against a private gardener.

The next time you're in your front yard and you look at the parkway strip between the sidewalk and the curb and imagine how beautiful it would look with some edible landscaping, get a lawyer. A grassroots "Food and Flowers Freedom Act" campaign prompted the City of LA to recently revise its parkway rules, resulting in the approval of turf alternatives that include strawberries, as long as they don't grow taller than 2 inches. Even if your only consideration is to simply plant drought resistant plants in lieu of traditional water-hogging turf, think twice. The permit process for doing the right thing is approximately $400.

The next time you're at the Farmers Market and you look at the wide variety of flowers, nuts, fruits and vegetables and wonder where it came from, it might be your neighborhood. The students at North Hollywood High School work the soil and then work the market, learning everything from composting to investing. Silver Lake Farms sells locally grown organic cut flowers, a callback to a time when flower production in Los Angeles was a backyard enterprise that allowed women to add to their household income. Keep in mind, laws passed in the 40's and 50's that were designed to aid the development of Los Angeles made it illegal to simply grow and sell flowers. Again, garden at your own risk and always consult a lawyer.

The next time you're at the grocery store, stop and give thanks. In many parts of LA, residents live within walking distance of dozens of liquor stores but no grocery stores. The City of LA's response to the food justice crisis is to loan liquor stores a refrigerator on the condition that they stock it with lettuce and tomatoes. Another option would be to have a Master Gardener take a bag of seeds and teach a class, perhaps on one of the many empty lots that litter the landscape, and give the gift of sustainable self-sufficiency to the community. Of course, gardens are the gateway to a life of crime, hence the liquor store partnership.

LA's most recent assault on Community Gardens is just the latest in a long list of municipal obstacles that prevent the people most in need from living sustainable lives of self sufficiency. It comes at a time when the City of LA should be doing the exact opposite, committing to more community gardens, supporting the urban farmers and rewarding them for their contribution, not gouging them with a 380% increase in rental fees.

Locally grown flowers, nuts, fruits and vegetables stimulate the local economy. That alone should end the debate and get the Mayor into a pair of overalls.

Local produce makes it to market without huge shipping and trucking costs, resulting in fresher food that is cheaper. The food in our markets typically travels more than the average Angeleno, a trend that comes with tremendous negative environmental impact. Locally produced food is an essential component of a sustainable big city.

Local "Distributed Agriculture" allows more people tending smaller plots to increase the variety of food within the community while breaking our dependency on large industrial agriculture which has proven its capacity for catastrophic collapse. The "Black Swans" of agriculture have resulted in Bee Colony Collapse Disorder, poultry recalls, e-coli deaths, and large scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) disasters that threaten the stability of our precariously balanced agricultural network.

The City of Los Angeles has an obligation to do the right thing for the people of LA and that means getting behind groups such as the Environmental Change-Makers and Liberty Hill as they address long-term solutions that will turn LA's food deserts into food oases. Most of all, it means treating LA's Community Gardeners and Urban Farmers like heroes, not like criminals.