Please read the xls document:

SFV NCBA12 & NCBAA12s (PDF)

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

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

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

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

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Ron Galperin pointed out “The City has no real centralized billing and collection process and systems are woefully outdated.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deputy Mayor Larry Frank at the 2010 BudgetLA Town Hall

CityWatch by Stephen Box
Vol 9 Issue 30
Pub: Apr 15, 2011

Saturday’s  Budget LA Town Hall features Matt Szabo, Larry Frank, Ron Galperin and BongHwan Kim in a “State of the Budget” presentation that addresses LA’s current budget crisis, the ongoing labor negotiations, and the impending cuts to city departments and services.

Matt Szabo, Deputy Chief of Staff to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, is responsible for the overall City of LA’s budget framework and labor negotiations from the Mayor’s office. Larry Frank, Deputy Mayor of Neighborhood and Community Services, is responsible for several city departments including the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, the Community Development Department, and the Bureau of Contract Administration.

Ron Galperin, Chair of the City of L.A.’s Revenue Efficiency Commission will present the CORE Blueprint for Reform of City Collections, recommendations for reforming how the City generates revenue and funds operations. BongHwan “BH” Kim, General Manager of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment which is responsible for nurturing neighborhood-based leadership and civic participation, will address “Neighborhood Councils – civic engagement and the budget process.”

Julie Butcher and Paul Hatfield will take on “Labor, Pensions & Healthcare” in a robust presentation that features their contrasting perspectives on the City of LA’s budget crisis.

Ms. Butcher is the Regional Director for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) where she leads SEIU 721′s Cities Division. Mr. Hatfield is a CPA with an MBA who serves as a financial consultant to clients that include financial institutions and the major studios.

The Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates will present highlights from the “Saving Jobs – Saving Services” white paper that represents their journey over the last six months as they worked with the Mayor’s office and met with department heads in search of a balanced budget.

BudgetLA is “a grassroots campaign fighting to develop a sustainable budget for the City of Los Angeles” and is open to the public. Its mission is to support civic engagement by offering information and ideas that inform along with tools for action that empower.

The Mayor is scheduled to deliver his proposed 2011-2012 budget to the City Council on April 20th, a deadline that is set by City Charter. The City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee will then begin budget hearings on April 27th, a process that takes weeks.

Through it all, the community has two choices; to stand by as spectators as the Mayor and City Council establish a budget that establishes the City of LA’s priorities or to participate as active partners in shaping the future and direction of the City of LA by steering the budget process.

The journey is well underway and it continues tomorrow, Saturday, April 16, at 10 am.

Budget LA “State of the Budget” Town Hall!
Saturday, April 16, 2011
10:00 am to 1:00 pm
First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood **
“The Cellar”
1760 N. Gower Street
Hollywood, CA 90028

** “BudgetLA has no affiliation with or endorsement by the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood”

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

Let’s call this a commentary:

In his annual State of the City address, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa stood before a crowded room of elected officials and supporters and called for education reform. In his prepared remarks, the mayor said:

“Now, I know some of these ideas are new, and some are not.  And over the years, we’ve had many well-intentioned efforts at reforming the educational system.  But any student of the LA Unified can tell you… That we can’t address our problems in the classroom… We won’t make real headway… Unless we change the lack of accountability at the top. I believe we need new leadership at every level. I believe we need to wake up and shake up the bureaucracy at the LAUSD.”

Though education reform was the theme of Villaraigosa’s sixth annual address, that quote is not from last night. It is from his 2006 State of the City. Five years later, the mayor is again pushing to be the education mayor, going so far as to speak directly to teachers and use the same line last night that he used in ’06: “It’s hard to risk what you’ve got when you’ve never had what you deserve.”

Since that first annual address, Villaraigosa has created the Partnership for L.A. Schools, which oversees 21 underperforming schools. He has also gotten supporters elected to the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education and had a close adviser serve as superintendent.

All that said, LAUSD still does not fall under the umbrella of the city of Los Angeles. The mayor acknowledged as much last night. “While it is true that I don’t have formal authority over our schools, I do have a bully pulpit and I will continue to use it,” he said.

So, what about the problems that do fall under the mayor’s umbrella? Faced with either a $350 million deficit, according to the city administrative officer, or a $500 million deficit, according to the mayor, in fiscal year 2011-12, Villaraigosa said his proposed budget would fund core services, including:

• Expanding library hours and restoring Monday service
• Opening new park facilities
• Maintaining and resurfacing 735 miles of city streets
• Filling 300,000 potholes

How will these things be funded? The library will see a boost thanks to Measure L, which voters passed in March and which increases the system’s annual budget per the city charter. However, the mayor did not give any details on where the money would come from to pay for those other services.

Villaraigosa spent part of the address highlighting the city’s recent accomplishments. He touted an ordinance that would give a preference to local companies seeking city business. “We are giving more work to local firms with our Local Preference Ordinance, and keeping our tax dollars circulating and multiplying here in LA,” he said.

And that will probably be true, when the Local Preference Ordinance is eventually passed by the Los Angeles City Council.

The mayor also touted the Department of Water and Power’s achievement of reaching 20 percent renewable energy by 2010. There was no mention of a recent controller audit that suggested reaching that goal was due to luck.

What is the state of the city? The mayor is poised to spend the last two years of his term focused on improving Los Angeles’ public schools. Meanwhile, those who understand finances believe Los Angeles is on the brink of bankruptcy. There is a deputy mayor who criticizes the Los Angeles City Council for not doing more about next year’s budget problems, when it is the mayor’s office that releases the budget.

So far, there’s a city controller and one council member running for mayor, with a big time developer, the aforementioned deputy mayor, a county supervisor and others possibly waiting in the wings.

The state of the city is that there’s a lot of work to do and no clear path on how to get it done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Community Gardeners argue that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BudgetLA

Saturday, April 16, 2011
10 am to 1 pm

Hollywood Presbyterian Church
1760 N. Gower Street
Hollywood, CA 90028

map of where BudgetLA will be hosting the event

direction to the church:

GOOGLE MAP IT HERE

A White Paper with Recommendations to Decrease the L.A.
City Budget Deficit in a Time of Economic Crisis

This report was prepared by the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates 2010-2011

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Los Angeles 2011-2012 Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates have prepared this report to offer proposals to help balance the city’s budget. The recommendations offered in this report. are the result of careful analysis of city budget data, vetting of recommendations by city personnel, coupled with a pragmatic application of government and business budget principles.

As city officials prepare to tackle a projected budget deficit of more than $400 million dollars, we, as appointed delegates of the Neighborhood Council system, have actively engaged in a systematic analysis of the City’s sources of revenue, management of departments, pension programs, collection processes, and a host of other factors that could potentially help contribute to narrowing the budget deficit. As a result of this analysis, we have come up with specific recommendations to help save the City money or in certain situations, help contribute to an increase in revenues to the City. These budget proposals have been guided by four principles:

(i) Increasing Efficiency
(ii) Generating Revenues;
(iii) Structural Changes; and,
(iv) Reducing Expenses.

It is the intent of the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates to critically review our City’s financial condition and to offer a new set of recommendations for solutions to our budget deficit problems. It is the belief of the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates that the application of some or all of the proposals contained in this report can help save the city millions of dollars while avoiding the disruption of essential services to the residents of the city.

To review the report online, click here.

To download the report in pdf, click here.

THE CRA LIVES?

Governor Brown has apparently decided that the infamous US Supreme Court case, Kelo v City of New London [545 U.S. 469 (2005)] is not such a bad thing after all.  Why else would he pardon CRA’s Kelo eminent domain from the death sentence which he had imposed a few months ago? According to a March 27 Sacramento Bee article by David Siders and Kevin Yamamura, “Republicans are also pushing to retain enterprise zone tax credits for businesses and a compromise that retains redevelopment agencies.” They noted that Brown is not sending the enterprise zone plan or a business tax formula change to the ballot, implying that it runs afoul of his campaign pledge not to raise taxes without voter approval.

Let’s yank the wool from our eyes. “Retain redevelopment agencies” means nothing else but to “retain Kelo Eminent Domain.”  The CRA’s Kelo eminent domain power allows any CRA to take any person’s property and give it to any private developer to build whatever he/she wants.

Readers may recall that last year the City of Los Angeles tried to Kelo eminent domain the entire city with AB 2531, but at the 11th hour Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill.  Gov. Brown promised to abolish Kelo eminent domain in the state by ending all the CRA’s.  Has he reached his 11th hour, since he seems to be going back on his promise?

CRA’s Kelo eminent domain strikes at the very heart of a free people – the right to own property without fear that the government will take it from you.  When the government can take your property, all personal liberties are at stake.  All nations, however, need a very limited type of eminent domain where something needs to be built for the society, e.g. a fire station, a school house, freeways, etc. Although traditional eminent domain is filled with abuse, it at least has to be a public project.

Not with Kelo.  All a councilmember needs to say is: “My good friend and financial backer would like to build a mixed-use project and we are taking Ms. Witherpoon’s property to build it on.”  Unless she has the good fortune to hire Robert Silverstein, Esq., poor Ms. Witherpoon will get pennies on the dollar and zero portion of the profits made by the developer.

It is disheartening to know that our representatives seem to think “What’s it to us that Ms. Witherpoon is subjected to a legal mugging?  After all we get a new shopping center and all the added tax income.”

Well, No!  Chances are very good that the shopping will never be built and if it is built, the tax payers will foot a huge portion of costs, and all the incremental property taxes are diverted to the CRA.  Ms. Witherpoon won’t get a cent and our society will become more anesthetized to the government’s stealing our property to give to its friends.

CRA projects are so poorly conceived that they financially bleed out.

The CRA Hollywood-Highland Complex cost $625 M to construct and then it was sold to CIM Group for only $201 M and then the City gave CIM Group an additional $30 M to rehab the new Kodak Theater.  That means there is a missing $454 Million.  It looks like a gigantic scam to steal private properties and have hundreds of millions of dollars disappear.  They should have named it the “David Copperfield Theater of the Disappearing Moolah.”

Governor Brown announced with fabulous fanfare that he understood the terrible threat of the CRA’s with their Kelo eminent domain powers, but then weird things happened.  In Los Angeles, for example, the two biggest supporters of CRA and its Kelo power are Council President Eric Garcetti and Councilman Tom LaBonge.

Garcetti was not up for re-election, but Tom LaBonge was facing two opponents – Stephen Box and Tomas O’Grady both of whom supported the governor’s call to end the CRA.  Whom did Gov. Brown endorse?  Councilman LaBonge!

If Brown had withheld any endorsement or better yet had he endorsed Box or O’Grady, LaBonge would have been forced into a run off.  Inexplicably for a Governor who said he was abolishing the CRA’s, Brown guaranteed that the much disliked and huge CRA supporter Tom LaBonge was returned to the City Council.

Trust me, Gov. Brown is no fool.  He had to know that if either Box or O’Grady had forced LaBonge into a run-off, it would reverberate in Sacramento – “There is a political cost to supporting CRA Kelo eminent domain.”   So why did Gov. Brown throw his weight in support of the CRA and against his supporters?

After the election, Gov. Brown fell silent about the CRA’s.  He let a vote occur knowing it lacked the votes. And surprise, surprise, just like any other two timing politico, the billionaires retain their multi-billion slush funds while Brown tries to raise taxes on us.

Really! Is Gov. Brown that naïve or dense?  Does he really think he can pardon CRA’s Kelo eminent domain?  Remember to our last Democrat Governor?  Governor what’s his name??? Oh yeah, Governor Recalled.

The constituents have always had the last word. – Especially when it comes to do the right thing.

What is the right thing to do in this particular situation, short of starting yet another recall campaign?

Well, you can call, e-mail or fax your representatives in the Assembly, the Senate, the Congress and YES, the Governor himself.

(Ziggy Kruse is an activist and reporter for www.HNN-TV.com . She is also a former Board Member of the Hollywood Studio District Neighborhood Council. Ziggy can be reached at ziggykruse@gmail.com)

On Monday, thirteen Neighborhood Council selected Budget Advocates presented Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his staff with recommendations for a sustainable financial future for the city of  Los Angeles. The Mayor expressed a general approval for many of the recommendations and expressed a willingness to endorse the spirit of, if not the all of the content, of the report.

After brief introductions and an overview [Link]  of the information gathering process that began in October and included consultations with the mayor’s staff, visits with department heads and labor officials, and outreach to neighborhood councils and all Angelenos via an online survey, Jay Handal of the West Los Angeles Neighborhood Council laid out the Advocates’ recommendations.

From the beginning it was clear that the Mayor was relaxed and engaged, expressing a desire to resolve the structural deficit on his watch.

The presentation began with efficiency recommendations which included follow-up on Controller audit findings [[  http://controller.lacity.org/Audits_and_Reports/index.htm  ]]   totaling $300 million in potential savings, the streamlining of the permit process, collection reform, endorsement of the CORE Blueprint for Change and a call to transfer leased occupancies to vacant, city owned properties. The mayor listened thoughtfully and demonstrated agreement with many of the recommendations.

During a discussion of revenue efficiencies, the Mayor expressed support for the City Attorney’s Administrative Code Enforcement (ACE) proposal and agreed that since we continue to operate parking facilities we should work to manage them to their fullest potential. He also expressed ongoing support for the Shop LA, a program which began as a previous Budget Advocate recommendation, spoke of his efforts to bring more philanthropic donors to the table to support activities such the Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD) program, and nodded in agreement to the idea that budget cuts should not be blind to a department’s revenue generating potential.

On the topic of structural changes, the mayor agreed with the idea of looking at departments that can be easily combined such as the recommended merger of the offices of Treasury and Finance, [pdf] but noted the difficult road bringing all of the required parties (Labor, Departments, and the City Council) to a consensus.

It became clear when the subject moved to expense reductions, that this continues to be an area of primary focus for the mayor. Two years ago in a similar meeting, the mayor had expressed confidence that given his labor background, there was a trust between his office and labor leaders that would allow the city to make the structural changes necessary to adapt to what he now agrees to be a “new (economic)  normal”. Two years later, this “only Nixon could go to China” approach has yet to bear the fruit required to put the city on a sustainable path.

The Advocates are recommending a diverse Citizens’ Commission which could provide a balanced review of this contentious and complex issue. The mayor agreed with recommendations for healthcare co-pay increases to $20, and a requirement for employees to pay a reasonable market rate for dependent coverage. At one point he mentioned the phrase “do I have a witness?” to express his agreement with many of the labor related suggestions.

The Mayor seemed to agree with the Budget Advocates’ position that the time for furloughs had come to an end, and that the city needs to draw a line on service levels and provide them full-time.  He also endorsed the idea that City Council districts report all income streams and detailed expenses in an online/ real-time manner, and volunteered the same requirement for his office.

Last year the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment was put under the microscope in budget discussions, and the presentation closed with a proposal for delaying NC elections for two years while working with the city to arrive at a sustainable election system. This would allow the NC’s to continue to receive their $45,000 annual allocation with an overall savings of $900,000 from the 2010-11 fiscal year budget. It was pointed out that if the 3,000 NC board members put in an average of 10 hours per month at a living hourly wage, the city receives an annual benefit of over $4 million from their services. The mayor agreed with the value of the system, citing the efforts of the Budget Advocates as an example. He reiterated that he has been supportive of NC funding in the past, and that although he had been considering a small cut, he would evaluate this proposal.

The mayor closed the meeting by praising the efforts of the Budget Advocates, noting that on their own time they had become quite knowledgeable about the city’s finances. He (and later Deputy Chief of Staff Matt Szabo) described labor negotiations as ongoing, and said that many of the Advocates’ recommendations were quite reasonable, and currently on the table in some form. He also recommended that the group begin to work with the Performance Management Unit (PMU) on the efficiency recommendations.

The fact that the Budget Advocates were selected five months in advance as opposed to the previous one to two weeks, resulted in a much deeper investigation and presentation which included a physical report [pdf] for the first time. Labor discussions clearly are ongoing, but recommended changes backed by survey results citing overwhelming to majority support for compensation reduction, as well as the nationwide clamor for reform, provide support for elected officials to pursue tough changes.

Perhaps the most optimistic development from the meeting was the mayor’s suggestion that the Budget Advocates work with the PMU to further explore the proposed efficiencies and structural changes. While this relationship may not result in immediate changes that can balance the budget now, with persistence, they could form the foundation for significant savings in the future and perhaps nurture a new spirit of creativity and political will for optimum performance by the city.

The Budget Advocates’ task is far from complete. Following the meeting, several members were headed to attend a Budget and Finance Special Meeting and plans are in the works for a presentation to the City Council. You can follow their activities at budgtadvocatesla.com.

(Scott Bytof is the South Park Resident Director on the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council, was a 2009-10 Budget Advocate and is a 2011 Budget Advocate alternate. He can be reached at scottbytof@ca.rr.com, and followed at twitter.com/sbytof)  -cw

They have become familiar faces to city department personnel and labor leaders, have promoted survey participation and Neighborhood Council outreach, and have spent long days and nights across the city crafting their message. On Monday, the Neighborhood Council selected Budget Advocates are going to City Hall to discuss a sustainable financial future with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The process began in October, as each of the 90+ Neighborhood Councils selected two budget representatives to attend the Mayor’s Budget Day at City Hall.

Attendees listened to presentations and remarks by the Mayor and other city officials. The topics were familiar, a current $63 million budget deficit for FY 2010-11, the need for pension reform, and departments dealing with less resources. Revenues had flat lined and were no longer decreasing, but were not growing.

Following this presentation, the representatives broke out into seven regional planning areas and discussed topics for the Mayor’s Budget Survey and the meeting with the Mayor in March.

Pension and healthcare reform were prominent mentions, as were department consolidation, efficiency, collections, elected officials’ discretionary funds and even the CRA.

This discussion allowed participants to get to know each other and the issues, and at the close of the sessions, two Budget Advocates were chosen to represent each planning area. A feedback loop was also established for the budget representatives to keep their Neighborhood Councils informed on budget issues as they arose.

In the months that followed, the Budget Advocates played an instrumental role in shaping the content of the Mayor’s Budget Survey by choosing topics and expanding outreach to include residents and business people as well as the city employee labor movement.

Nearly 10,000 survey responses reflecting support for maintaining Fire Department funding (60%) and Police hiring (53%), reforming pensions (80%), reducing pay for elected officials (97%) and employee pay and benefits (60%) informed the advocates, as did meetings with departments and labor representatives which brought to light creative opportunities, insight, and a sense for how far the impacted parties might go to bridge the budget divide.

Last Saturday at the Regional Budget Day, the representatives returned to City Hall to hear from city officials and Neighborhood Council leaders about a projected $350 million deficit for FY 2011-12 with similar deficits expected in future years, and the need to bring the best ideas together to maintain core services.

Afterwards, the representatives and advocates once again broke out into their planning areas to discuss regional differences in the survey results and to review topics to be presented to the mayor on March 21st. Having received this feedback, the Budget Advocates spent the rest of the day putting the final touches on the presentation for the mayor and a planned presentation to the City
Council.

With survey results and the Neighborhood Councils and stakeholders behind them, Budget Advocate leader Jay Handal said that this year’s group has been a “different kind of committee”. Because they were selected in October (as opposed to March in previous years), they have had more time to dig in and provide more depth. They also plan to produce a physical report as part of their presentation.

Some of the simpler suggestions involve acting upon already available information such as the Commission on Revenue Efficiency (CORE) findings and City Controller audits.

Others will include revoking and not issuing permits to entities that owe the city money, setting up a “fast track” team which might include legal staff to expedite structural and process changes, implementing new technology and establishing and promoting service standards,

With a large percentage of the budget consisting of personnel costs, the discussion would not be complete without reviewing labor issues. The Budget Advocates realize that the city cannot survive by continuing to cut services, but also sees the need to reflect current practices in the labor marketplace.

The group considers furloughs as a short term solution for which the time has passed. Compensation will need to change, but only in conjunction with a stable sustainable budget that does not seek changes annually, and allows for a mutually rewarding future.

Handal suggests a theme of “service before politics” will be woven throughout, and that the committee has sought to put the pieces in place to maintain a productive city workforce and core services. He suspects that many aspects “will not be well received” but feels that this will be an indication that the suggestions are fair and apolitical.

Following this meeting, the Budget Advocates expect to present to the City Council, and will continue to seek feedback from Neighborhood Councils and their budget reps, serve as advocates throughout the Budget and Finance committee hearings, and will soon be posting reports on budgetadvocatesla.com.

(Scott Bytof is the South Park Resident Director on the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council, was a 2009-10 Budget Advocate and is a 2011 Budget Advocate alternate. He can be reached at scottbytof@ca.rr.com. and followed at twitter.com/sbytof) –cw

EVERYONE WANTS TO GET THEIR VOICE HEARD DOWNTOWN.
HERE IS YOUR CHANCE TO MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.

Remember that a Stakeholder is anyone who “…lives, works or owns property in L.A. or affirms a factual basis for their interest in L.A.”  You don’t have to be a L.A. Citizen or even an American Citizen … and the only identification that is required is a Zip Code.

This survey let’s the Mayor know what YOU think.  Every page of the Survey has a box labelled “Your Thoughts” where you can add information and make any comments you wish.

The last page of the Survey includes a link labelled, “CLICK HERE‘ where you can pick your favorite 10 City Services.  Watch for it … it’s too good to miss.

In a major reduction, Brown would wipe out hundreds of local redevelopment agencies, which use property taxes to spur projects in blighted areas. State leaders in 2009-10 took $1.7 billion from redevelopment agencies, though voters in November approved a ballot initiative, Proposition 22, that presumably blocks such transfers in the future.

Brown wants to eliminate redevelopment agencies altogether; it is not clear whether that would require voter approval. He intends to use the money to offset state budget costs for one year and then give the money to counties and schools thereafter.

“Frankly, nothing would surprise me since it seems like we’ve been everyone’s target,” said John Shirey, executive director of the California Redevelopment Association. “Naturally, we would fight that, and we think the voters were very clear in their passage of Proposition 22 … that local money needs to stay local and the state needs to find its own solutions to state problems.”

The Bee provided no details on Brown’s proposal and had no comment from Brown aides.

But if Brown’s proposal is as wide-ranging as it seems, it would throw funding for nearly every major San Diego project in doubt. Downtown redevelopment dollars are key for a proposed Chargers stadium, Convention Center expansion and already are being used for the new schoobrary.

We’ll try to find out more on this today. A hat tip to former VOSDer Vlad Kogan for alerting me to the story.

Please contact Liam Dillon directly at liam.dillon@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.550.5663 and follow him on Twitter: twitter.com/dillonliam.

CityWatch

What will happen to the US economy in 2011?  If you’re referring to profits of big corporations and Wall Street, next year is likely to be a good one.  But if you’re referring to average American workers, far from good.

The two American economies — the Big Money economy and the Average Working Family economy — will continue to diverge. Corporate profits will continue to rise, as will the stock market. But typical wages will go nowhere, joblessness will remain high, the ranks of the long-term unemployed will continue to rise, the housing recovery will remain stalled, and consumer confidence will sag. The big disconnect between corporate profits and jobs is likely to continue because America’s big businesses are depending less and less on U.S. sales and U.S. workers. Their big profits are coming from two sources: (1) growing sales in China, India, and other fast-growing countries, and (2) slimmed-down US payrolls.

In a typical recovery, profits lead to more hiring. That’s because in a typical recovery, American consumers head back to the malls — and their buying justifies more hires. Not this time. All the hype about Christmas sales over the last few weeks masked the fact that American consumers demanded bargain-basement prices. And the price-cutting dramatically reduced sellers’ margins. In short, profits aren’t coming from American consumers — and profits won’t be coming from American consumers in 2011.

Most Americans don’t have the dough. They’re still deep in debt, can’t borrow against their homes, and have to start saving for retirement.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is rising because of foreign sales. General Motors is now making more cars in China than in the US, and two-thirds of its total sales are coming from abroad. When it went public last month it boasted that soon almost half its cars will be made around the world where labor is less than $15 an hour.

Wal-Mart isn’t doing especially well in America but Wal-Mart International is booming. And Wal-Mart is hiring like mad outside the US.

General Electric is keeping its payrolls down in the US but plans to invest half a billion dollars in Brazil and hire 1,000 Brazilians, and invest $2 billion in China.

Corporate America is in a V-shaped recovery. That’s great news for investors and everyone whose savings are mainly in stocks and bonds. It’s also great news for executives and Wall Street traders, whose pay is linked to stock prices. All can expect a banner 2011.

But most American workers are trapped in an L-shaped recovery. That’s bad news for the Main Streets and small businesses in 2011. It’s also a bad omen for home prices and sales, and everyone whose savings are mainly in their homes.

Home prices in major metropolitan areas sank last month, the third straight month-to-month drop. I expect home price declines to continue next year. We’re in a double-dip housing market, largely because unemployment remains so bad that millions of Americans can’t pay their mortgages.

None of this bodes well for US employment next year. I expect the official unemployment rate to remain around 9 percent.

In other words, whether 2011 is a great year economically depends which economy you’re in – the one that’s rising with the profits of big business and Wall Street, or the one that will continue to struggle with few jobs and lousy wages.

Sadly, the next Congress is unlikely to do much to reverse any of this. Most Republicans and too many Democrats are dependent on corporate America and Wall Street. Their version of tax reform is to cut taxes on the wealthy and on big corporations, and either raise them on everyone else (sale and property taxes are already on the rise) or cut spending on programs working families depend on.

At some point, perhaps, the disconnect between America’s two economies will become so big and so obvious it can no longer be ignored. Progressives, enlightened Tea Partiers, Independents, organized labor, minorities, and the young form a new progressive movement designed to reconnect America.

One can always hope.

(Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .)

Photo by Ringo Chiu

CityWatch, Vol 9 Issue 1, Pub: Jan 4, 2011

Businesses in Hollywood and Westwood are trying to put the brakes on Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s proposal to lease out city parking garages.

The opposition is driven by fear that private-sector operators would have to dramatically increase parking rates, driving away customers. They’re calling for the city to scrap the plans, or at least limit the rates that any new operators could charge. “This would be an obstacle to attracting new customers and we could lose some of our existing customers,” said David Friedman, owner of Sarah Leonard Fine Jewelers in Westwood Village. Friedman, whose family has run the store since 1947, has set aside expansion plans because of the mayor’s proposal.

Tej Sundher, one of the owners of the Hollywood Wax Museum and the Hollywood Guinness World of Records Museum, is also concerned. Sundher said most of his customers come by car and he would lose their business if parking became too expensive.

“This would be one of the most negative impactful things for us since the 9/11 terrorist attacks,” he said. “People aren’t going to pay $10 or more to park and walk over to our museums.”

The mayor’s plan, which could be voted on as early as this week, calls for the city to lease out nine city-owned parking garages for 50 years to a business or a consortium. The city would get an up-front payment of $53 million for the lease, which includes three garages in Hollywood and one in Westwood. The $53 million would go to plugging the city’s massive budget hole; the money already has been counted in the city’s 2010-11 general fund. If the plan fails, cuts would have to be made in city services or staffing levels to make up the difference.

In order for the private-sector operator to recoup its investment, the Hollywood lots – including the Hollywood & Highland garage and the ArcLight Cinemas structure – would be allowed to triple rates for short-term parking over five years. Currently, the ArcLight lot charges $4 for the first four hours, $2 with validation. Hollywood & Highland charges $3 for the first four hours. Under the lease plan, a private operator could raise rates over five years to a maximum of $10.80 for the ArcLight garage and $9.60 for the Hollywood & Highland garage.

Meanwhile, the Westwood garage would lose its current free-parking status and could raise rates as high as $5 for short-term parking in phases during the next five years.

For the following 45 years, the parking rates would be indexed to inflation. What’s more, the city would be barred from building parking structures within one-eighth of a mile of these garages for that period.  (The rest of Howard Fine’s column here.)

(Howard Fine writes for the LABusinessJournal.com where this article was first posted.) Photo Credit: Ringo Chiu

On May 31 and June 30, the City will be required to repay $322 million and $296 million, respectively, a total of $618 million, related to the Tax & Revenue Anticipation Notes. As has been the practice since 1998, these notes were issued in July to fund the City’s operations prior to the receipt of property tax revenues and to prepay the ever increasing pension obligations.

At the same time, the City will begin the marketing of a new issuance of Tax & Revenue Anticipation Notes. While the amount of the new offering is uncertain, the amount will be considerably higher than last year’s $1.16 billion, more than twice the $619 million issued in July 2005, demonstrating the continuing deterioration of the City’s finances. But there has been a considerable change in the municipal bond market as witnessed by the rude reception that the State of California received on its recent $14 billion offering and the usurious interest rates it had to pay for nine month paper. We have witnessed the flight of retail investors from municipal bond mutual funds, concerned about the credit worthiness of many issuers. We have also seen a fragmentation of the municipal bond market as municipal bond insurance is no longer available, forcing buyers and analysts to investigate in greater depth the credit worthiness of troubled issuers such as the City of Los Angeles.

But a comprehensive analysis of the City’s financials will not be pretty, leading to the question of how the credit rating agencies, a major culprit in the recent credit crisis, can even consider that the City is an investment grade credit given its chronic budget deficits, its significant off balance sheet liabilities, its inefficient operations, and its dysfunctional organization.

According to the City Administrative Officer’s First Financial Status Report, this year’s budget is already $64 million in the red. This assumes the fire sale of the parking facilities in Hollywood and Pershing Square, much to the detriment of those business communities.

And next year, the deficit is anticipated to be $319 million, increasing to over $550 million in 2014-15. But this is nothing new and different as we started last year off with a deficit of $485 million.

In the past, the City has relied on dubious gimmicks to “balance” its budget, such as the Early Retirement Incentive Plan where the City raided its already seriously underfunded pension plan to entice 2,400 senior employees to retire early by offering each $150,000 (a total of $355 million). The City also transferred 1,600 employees from the General Fund to the Department of Water and Power, increasing DWP’s head count by 20%, adversely impacting our ever increasing water and power rates.

Unfortunately, the operating deficits are seriously understated as City Hall’s financial wizards “cook the books.” For example, the City cleverly “saved” about $400 million last year by changing the “smoothing” assumptions for its two already seriously underfunded pension plans to seven years from five years.

Nor does it include the failure to adequately fund the repair and maintenance of our infrastructure, “saving” hundreds of millions despite the fact that maintenance deferred will cost two, three, or four times more in the near future. This is obvious to anybody who has driven on our streets, walked on our sidewalks or visited our parks, buildings, or facilities.

Nor does it include the deferral of the cash payment for police overtime that was actually earned in the current fiscal year, a tactic that defies generally accepted accounting principles.

The net: when you add back all the phony baloney “savings,” this year’s budget deficit is probably close to $1 BILLION.

Over the past five years, the General Fund’s balance sheet has deteriorated as the General Fund’s net worth has decreased by over 50%, from $810 million on June 30, 2005 to an optimistic estimate of $400 million on June 30, 2010.

At the same time, the General Fund’s cash balances decreased over 40%, from $409 million on July 1, 2009 to an estimated $240 million a year later.

But even more devastating are the massive liabilities associated with the unfunded pension liabilities, now to be in the range of $15 billion (assuming a realistic Investment Return Assumption). This is compounded by the estimated $10 billion that is needed to upgrade our deteriorated infrastructure to an “economically sustainable” level. And this does not include the $7 billion needed for the storm water system over the next ten years.

The problems of annual deficits and massive liabilities are magnified by a cumbersome bureaucracy, outdated management information and accounting systems, and overly restrictive union contracts and seniority rules that result in the inefficient delivery of both core and noncore services, compounded by the inability to take corrective action on a timely and cost effective basis.

But the real problem is with the completely dysfunctional leadership of the City that appears incapable of implementing any meaningful reform or even developing a long term solvency plan.

A classic example is the recent last minute changes that occurred with the proposed ballot measures involving the Department of Water & Power. Over the past 100 days, the Council conducted six DWP Reform Hearings throughout the city where no objections were voiced by any Council Members. To the contrary, many Members voiced their support of the Ratepayers Advocate Term Sheet.

But when Boss D’Arcy of the IBEW, concerned about increased scrutiny of the DWP’s operations, finances, and management, voiced his objections, a cabal of eight City Councilors kissed D’Arcy’s ring, emasculating the Ratepayers Advocate and scuttling the ability of the Council to remove DWP Commissioners or its General Manager with a two-thirds vote. The anti reform Councilors are Eric Garcetti, Herb Wesson, Jose Huizar, and Janice Hahn, all of whom attended one of more of the six hearings, as well as Ed Reyes, Dennis Zine, Tom LaBonge, and Richard Alarcon.

You can just imagine the run for cover when the Police Protective League, the United Firefighters, and Coalition of City Unions raise strenuous objections to real pension reform, a truly balanced budget, more furloughs and layoffs, greater operating efficiencies, and the outsourcing of services.

To date, despite the warnings by Mayor Richard Riordan and Alex Rubalcava of bankruptcy in 2014, our City officials have done little to address the impending financial crisis. We do not even have a well thought out solvency plan that addresses the pension liabilities, our failing infrastructure, the chronic budget deficits, and the inefficient delivery of services.

Rather the City has engaged in very limited reform. To address the $64 million deficit this year, there appears to be no meaningful action other than transferring money between funds. The so called pension reform for new hires does little to address the unfunded liabilities. And the outsourcing of medical billing and collection is too small and specialized to make a real difference.

But come June, it will be Crunch Time as the City may face a financial crisis. What if the rating agencies correctly downgrade the City’s credit ratings, if the buyers come to the realization that the City is a junk credit (less than investment grade or speculative), if investors recognize that the City is rolling over its operating deficit to the next year a la New York City in 1975, if the accountants question the City’s ability to continue as an “ongoing concern,” or if the City is plagued by a Bell like scandal.

While it is not politic to root against the home team, the only way that the City will engage in meaningful reform is for it to be faced with a crisis imposed by outside forces; in this case the financial markets that refuse to finance the City’s ongoing operations.

Politics be damned. NOW is the time for the City to address its impending financial meltdown before it becomes a reality. Otherwise, you will all be out of a job.

(Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and the Ratepayer Advocate for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council. Humphreville is the publisher of the Recycler — www.recycler.com . He can be reached at: lajack@gmail.com)

Cities in crisis tend to look at community gardens as a solution, an opportunity to feed those in need, particularly low-income and traditionally underrepresented families. In addition to improving nutrition by increasing access to fresh produce, community gardens have a positive economic, social, and educational impact on the neighborhood, resulting in stronger communities and a cleaner, greener city. But not in Los Angeles.

The City of Los Angeles tends to look at the seven community gardens operated by the Department of Rec and Parks as liabilities, prompting its shortsighted proposal to increase user fees that will take the rental of a 10-by-20-foot plot from $25 to $120 as of January 1, 2011.

The Sepulveda Garden Center in Encino is one of the largest community gardens operated on City of LA property with approximately 800 garden plots on 20 acres of land. Garden farmers recently turned out in mass to protest the rate hikes, arguing that the impact on the seniors citizens “is like trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.”

The Wattles Farm in Hollywood is one of the oldest community gardens operated on City of LA property with approximately 300 garden plots on just over 4 acres of land. Farmers point out that in addition to maintaining over 200 varieties of fruit trees and a 100-year-old grove of avocado trees, they have improved public safety, bringing security to a neighborhood that was prone to vandalism and trespassing.

The 75 community gardens in the greater Los Angeles area vary dramatically in style, in purpose, and in impact on the surrounding neighborhood. “Guerrilla Gardens” sprout on orphaned public land, created anonymously by guerrilla gardeners who clean the area, cultivate the soil, plant low-maintenance ground cover and engage neighbors in an effort to create community.

“Educational Gardens” on school property are practical tools that engage students in real world lessons that range from science to sociology to economics to nutrition to administration. 200 students at North Hollywood High School work year-round on seven acres of urban farm, home to the Cocoxochitl Flower Farm, a vineyard, an orchard, rose gardens, chickens, rabbits, one 300 pound pig and over 5,000 dahlias. The students sell their harvest at the nearby Hollywood Farmer’s Market.

“Public Safety Gardens” reclaim abandoned lots and bring the community together with a common purpose that results in a safer neighborhood. Property values go up when the chain link fencing comes down.

“Social Gardens” offer people of different walks and skills the opportunity to share in a common goal, resulting in a pollination of cultures and the establishment of relationships that transcend traditional boundaries. Good for the garden, great for the neighborhood.

“Victory Gardens” offer low-income neighborhoods an opportunity to put healthy food on the table during tough economic times in the same tradition as during WWII when America produced 40% of its produce in back yard gardens. A minimal investment in community gardens has a maximum economic impact on the community and contributes to self-reliance.

Community Gardens occur in neighborhoods throughout LA County, some rich, some poor, some edible, some decorative, some public, some private, some meditative, some celebrative. They vary as much as the people that farm them. The one thing they have in common is that they are dirt cheap do-it-yourself solutions that enrich the lives of everybody and require only minimal support from the city.

Community Gardens are the type of land-use phenomenon that the City of Los Angeles should be promoting, not discouraging. Any minimal financial benefit to be realized by increasing the community garden fees pales in comparison to the benefits that a community garden brings to the neighborhood and to the city.

The City of LA’s current assault on community gardening is just the latest in a long series of shortsighted budget solutions that consist of increasing the cost of living in Los Angeles while simultaneously reducing the benefits.

Now is the time to support the people of Los Angeles as they reclaim land, grow food, educate youth, connect people, and encourage healthy lifestyles. The City of LA’s “penny wise, dollar foolish” behavior must stop and its long term investment in the people of LA must start with the gardens that feed those with the greatest need.

(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 Council District 4.)

It actually scares me when economists push housing as a panacea to ending the recession. What short memories they have – the housing market was the primary driver of this recession.

If we continue to emphasize the housing market as one of the key legs of our economy, we run the risk of recreating another devastating bubble in the long-run. Such an emphasis will almost assure a return to the mindless policies that pumped the market to an unsustainable level.

The increased mortgage underwriting vigilance we are seeing today will eventually dissolve as long as housing is promoted as an economic activity generator. The same types of policymakers, developers, investors and financiers that tanked the real estate market will be drawn back into the game like moths to a flame. We cannot allow that to happen.

How to unwind the debilitating effects of foreclosures and negative equity, along with defining what role housing should play in the economy going forward, must be the primary focus of our leaders and lenders.  By contrast, too much time was wasted on a health care overhaul instead of fostering business growth, and stimulus money for “shovel-ready” projects was handed out like mortgages during the bubble expansion.

Allowing mass foreclosures amounts to a losing strategy.  Mass foreclosures will continue to depress prices and leave vacant homes rotting in the sun.  Some regions are more susceptible than others to this type of economic and social decay.

In all but the worst of cases, lenders should agree to allow the current owners on the verge of default to rent the properties and even allow a repurchase option if their circumstances change for the better.  It would entail signing over the homes to the banks, but the alternative is worse.  Renting back might even offer a path to solvency and stability for some.

Both the lenders and investors (including the government), need to bite the bullet, book the losses and move on.

How  actual foreclosures are resolved depends on location.  It pays for the lenders to fix and maintain properties in desirable markets with an eye to selling or leasing them.

Properties in undesirable, over-built markets, such as exburb subdivisions that never should have been constructed, need to be bulldozed.  The cost to undo deterioration and maintain vacant homes does not make sense in weak markets. There is little chance a largely abandoned single-family tract on the outskirts of Victorville will ever attract prices adequate to recover repair and maintenance costs.  The land should be rezoned to commercial use.  Manufacturing should be encouraged to fill the vacuum, especially where infrastructure was established to support large housing tracts.

There will be pain, so get it behind us sooner than later.

Owners who have the resources to keep current on their mortgages despite being underwater are prisoners of their own homes.  They can’t unload them unless their lenders agree to do shortsales, but that will leave sellers with no cash and a scarred credit rating – hardly the foundation to start anew.

However, there is hope for these owners.  It requires patience and resolve.

Consider this example.  A home purchased for $625,000 five years ago during the height of the boom.  The buyer financed 80%, or $500,000, at 5.5% interest for thirty years.

The value declined 40% to $325,000 and is underwater compared to its outstanding mortgage balance of $462, 303 (the borrower is current).

If the housing market where the property is located makes a very modest recovery – assume 2% annual average annual appreciation – the equity and the value will be almost equal in another five years.  OK, it’s still a loss, but once a property is above water, equity will build faster than most would imagine.  Leverage will then be working for the owners; not against them.

This scenario would be better if lenders were to re-finance owners who have kept current into lower rate mortgages.  There is at least one such program, but it is limited to loans owned by FNMA and FHLMC.  How long the program will last is uncertain (Chase was part of the program and might still be. You have to be current and the loan must still be serviced by the original lender.  Income documentation is minimal).

There should be a requirement to force lenders to re-finance their non delinquent portfolio loans.  It’s just good business and it is far preferable to having those borrowers walk away out of frustration.

What about the future of housing and the role it should play in the economy?

The most important step before any housing strategy is developed is to eliminate the notion that most people should own homes.

It’s a goal everyone should consider, but whether you should depend on many factors, any one of which could make purchasing a home an unwise decision.

But don’t count on the lenders and government officials to know what is good for you.  Even with today’s tougher underwriting standards, the personal circumstances of the buyers will never be addressed by loan officers fixated on debt to equity ratios, incomes and credit scores.

Government officials have always been obsessed with the increased consumer spending activity that accompanies home purchases.  However, the correlation might not be anywhere close to what it was in the past. The “wealth effect” of the boom years may take decades to re-establish itself.  Homeowners will likely clutch their wallets and save more as a reserve against another downturn. Also, many new homes are smaller, which means less furniture, accessories, carpets, paint, etc.

Even if you can manage the mortgage, tax and insurance payments, the utility costs will continue to rise. If you are a customer of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, you will appreciate that.  It took Prop 13 to rein in real estate taxes.  However imperfectly it accomplished that, it did bring relief and some predictability. But there is no equivalent of a Prop 13 on the horizon for utility costs.

Then there are the prospects of employment.  The ability to advance  careers, increase the size of paychecks or just stay employed may require more geographic mobility.  If you own a home, unloading it in a reasonable amount of time might not be possible.  Goodbye job opportunity. Renting, then, might be the  sensible option for most people.

As gloomy as all of this sounds, in the long-run an economy less dependent on housing  will be healthier.

Houses will return to what they were in the post World War 2 era – a roof over your head and a source of pride; not a commodity to be traded for a fast buck.

Saving, while it diminishes consumer spending, helps stimulate investment in plant and equipment.  Restoring some of the lost manufacturing segment would help improve our exports and create lasting jobs rather than the boom and bust employment from home construction.

If we want to compete with China, Brazil, India and other emerging economic powers, we must return to a more balanced economy backed by production capacity, not an economy built on buying and selling homes to each other.

From three legged stools that don’t wobble to thrice braided cords that won’t break, we’re surrounded by examples of the wisdom of embracing solutions that include three components and tomorrow’s Community Budget Summit is the perfect opportunity.

The City of Los Angeles has been embroiled in an escalating budget crisis for years, typically prompting three responses from the community:

• fierce defenders of specific programs storm City Hall to defend libraries or cultural affairs or parks or any of the many threatened city services that the City Council puts up on the “budget dust” chopping block as a token sacrifice toward a balanced budget.
• big picture advocates argue for systemic solutions that range from long-term budget commitments to revised pension strategies to the implementation of greater efficiencies and accountability to a complete overhaul of City Hall.
• optimists who step out of the way and avoid the drama, joining the Mayor and the City Council in kicking the budget crisis down the road, confident that a sinking ship will eventually right itself.

Neighborhood Councils have an opportunity, actually an obligation according to the City Charter, to weigh in on the 2010-2011 City Budget, and to work together to advise the Mayor and the City Council on LA’s budget commitments, the delivery of city services, and the generation of revenue. The budget journey is long and complicated, but if the community wants to have an impact, it needs to start now, not during next year’s budget hearings when there is nothing left but triage.

Here are three significant strategies for moving forward with a City Budget that is balanced, that supports a Great City commitment and that delivers City Services fairly, equitably, and responsibly:

• Collect the revenue! The Commission on Revenue Efficiency ( http://core.lacity.org/ ) (CORE) just released its Blueprint for Reform of City Collections, complete with 65 specific recommendations for ensuring that the taxpayers of Los Angeles get their money’s worth and that the residents and businesses of LA get a City that Works. CORE focused on the hundreds of millions of dollars on the table that go uncollected, simply because of inefficiencies in revenue collections, tax compliance, accounts receivable collections, new revenues, centralized billing, and implementation of the City Controller’s audit of collection practices.
• Implement performance standards, operating efficiencies, and an environment of accountability! CORE set the standard for community engagement and pursuit of a creative solution and the next opportunity is to evaluate the simple City Hall machine and the tremendous redundancy that requires a half dozen departments to engage in the process of crossing the street safely. Departments currently compete against each other, performance is not evaluated from the perspective of the community, the silo operating style bleeds money and limits the delivery of City Services.
• Connect with funding sources at the Federal, State, and County levels, moving the income target off the residents and businesses. The current paradigm for revenue enhancement is to layer increasingly higher fees and penalties on top of existing taxes and licenses, charging the people of LA more for less. Meanwhile, surrounding communities such as Long Beach and Glendale go to the same funding sources and come back with significantly higher funding awards while the City of LA fumbles. The people of LA must speak up and demand an integrated funding strategy that stops LA’s departments from competing with each other and from breaking the financial backs of the public.

LA’s City Charter mandates that Neighborhood Councils advise City Hall, that they promote the civic engagement process, that they monitor the delivery of City Services, and that they engage in the development of the Mayor’s Budget.

This is the beginning of a 2010-2011 City Budget journey that is based on solid revenue sourcing and collection, that serves as the blueprint for a City that Works, and that supports a Great City commitment to the delivery of City Services.

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

In theory, LA’s City Charter gives shape to the structure of the city but in practice, it is LA’s City Budget that defines the city, feeding the elements that are to flourish and starving those that are to wither. For all of the talk and press conferences and wringing of hands, it is the City Budget that establishes the priorities of the city, brings its character to life, and establishes its journey into the future.

The Mayor and City Council typically present LA’s budget saga to the people of LA as an “either/or” proposition, one that pits public safety against libraries or street repair against access to parks. Those that fall for the false paradigm are left to grapple with the City Hall imposed burden of guilt that comes from wanting it all, a safe and healthy city that is committed to delivering city services worthy of a Great City.

Critics of City Hall also embrace the “either/or” proposition, claiming that the City of LA either initiate pension bloodletting immediately or enter into bankruptcy proceedings. From the Huffington Post to Los Angeles Magazine, well-articulated arguments have been made for moving from discussions of budget priorities and simply engaging in triage.

Somewhere in between the two overly simplistic ends of the spectrum lie a multitude of complicated options and opportunities, so many that the landscape can be overwhelming and discouraging. At the same time, it has been argued that life can be reduced to several basic plots.

Comedy: Some might call the budget crisis a comedy of errors, others might dismiss the behavior of the participants as a farce, but if the City of LA doesn’t successfully confront the budget crisis, the audience will go down with the performers. If the public successfully engages the budget crisis and prevails, then we can look back and have a laugh at the journey, otherwise, LA will be the bad joke that took the spotlight from Bell.

Tragedy: Neighborhood Councils were created with a City Charter mandate to advise the Mayor and City Council on budget priorities. The Mayor and his staff began work on the 2011/2012 budget months ago, leaving the public in a secondary position. It would be tragic if Neighborhood Councils settled for a spectator role instead of firmly communicating the priorities and solutions that come from the community.

Voyage and Return: The people of LA have ventured into a landscape that is filled with homelessness, foreclosures, unemployment, and failing infrastructure. There’s a fork in the road and the choice is simple, more of the same with increasing intensity or the return to paradise. It’s a choice, one that the people of LA must take, and it starts with the immediate budget process.

The Quest: The City of LA is under siege and City Hall insiders have long warned that the current crisis is deeper than the public is being told, that it is going to change the City of LA forever. The die is cast, the journey is underway, libraries are being closed, staff are disappearing, quality of life commitments are a thing of the past. The people of LA are faced with an opportunity to demonstrate “People are at their best when things are worst.”

Overcoming the Monster: The enemy is at the gate and it threatens the entire community. The only “either/or” proposal on the table is to slay the beast or be destroyed. The City of LA will not survive if it continues to argue “assistance for the aging vs. arts for the children” or any of the other “budget dust” debates that consume the attention of the City Council. The people of Los Angeles must work together and put the focus on a budget that works.

Rebirth: Assuming that both “either/or” paradigms have some truth in them, now is the time for the people of Los Angeles to embrace the challenge and demonstrate all that is Great about LA. The most creative and innovative people live in Los Angeles and the current budget crisis is an opportunity to establish LA as the Capital of Rebirth. For that to happen, the public has to step up quickly and assume the starring role in a great story!

Rags to Riches: Neighborhood Councils have spent a decade bobbing in the political waters, dismissed in good times and on the chopping block in bad times. Now is the opportunity for the public to step to the center of the stage and to reveal that the ordinary is actually quite extraordinary. Implausible? History demonstrates over and over again that it is not only plausible, it is probable. This is the time for the people of Los Angeles to excel.

The Mayor and City Hall have been criticized for “kicking the budget problems down the road” and simply postponing the inevitable. If this scenario is to change, it will be because the people of Los Angeles step up and demand a starring role in the next chapter of the LA Story.

(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 City Council District 4.)