Photo: Wikipedia

The first meeting of the year for Valley Democrats United produced what most members enthusiastically claimed was ‘the best meeting ever for the club.’

Normally, one would think the issue of ‘Homelessness in Los Angeles’ would not inspire much enthusiasm, but the club president, Brad Parker, initiated the meeting with a powerful personal story of a homeless individual telling a tale of homelessness that was heart rending and compelling.

Four very informative experts on the subject of the Homeless in Los Angeles County were the guest speakers on the panel: Michael Arnold, Executive Director of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) – Ruth Schwartz, Founder and Executive Director of Shelter Partnership – David Sapp, Staff Attorney of ACLU of Southern California – Susie Shannon, Executive Director of Poverty Matters.

Mike Arnold

Giving an overview of LAHSA, Mike Arnold explained the agency’s Mission Statement: “To support, create and sustain solutions to homelessness in Los Angeles County by providing leadership, advocacy, planning, and management of program funding.”

The supportive cost for housing residents is $605 a month. The typical public cost for similar homeless persons is $2,897, five times greater than their counterparts that are housed. The larger figure includes different types of jailing, Sheriff and Police, Paramedics, Public Health, Mental Health, private hospitals – ER, DPSS food stamps and other services that add to the cost.

On January 25-27, 2011, the Los Angeles homeless count (largest in the nation) took place. The count takes place every other year, with the support of 4,000 volunteers.
The census covers more than 4,000 square miles, all of Los Angeles County, except for the cities of Glendale, Pasadena and Long Beach, which conducted their own census counts. In 2011 the census count of the homeless was 51,340, 3% less than 2009 at 52,931. A looming problem that Arnold brought up was homeless veterans.

Ruth Schwartz

Ruth Schwartz explained that Shelter Partnership is dedicated to alleviating, preventing and ending homelessness by assisting in the development of short-term and transitional housing programs, affordable housing, and supportive services for the homeless and potentially homeless throughout Los Angeles County.

Shelter Partnership Inc. is a nonprofit organization developing resources for the growing number of homeless families and individuals in L. A. County. Since 1985, Shelter Partnership has provided support to hundreds of agencies, free of charge. In addition, Shelter Partnership is a resource to public agencies, the business community, local and national media and community members involved in issues of homelessness and the creation of permanent, affordable housing.

The ACLU representative, attorney David Sapp, explained how the organization had worked with the homeless population on various issues. A question came up regarding ‘veteran’s rights,’ opening up a discussion with Sapp of an ongoing legal battle between veterans and available VA housing in West Los Angeles. The ACLU is leading a class action suit over the VA owned and unused buildings on the property, against the Department of Veterans Affairs.

David Sapp

400 acres of land had been donated in 1888 in what became West Los Angeles, for U.S. Veterans to “establish, construct and permanently maintain” a branch of a national home for veterans, according to the original deed. For close to 100 years that’s what happened: permanent veterans facilities were built, including a post office, a trolley system and housing for 4,000 vets.

During the Vietnam War era, the vets were kicked out. Today, the facility’s abandoned buildings can’t be occupied by the veterans they were built for in the first place. The VA leased parts of the property to businesses. Last September, the VA canceled three leases, but other businesses still exist, including a public golf course, a college baseball stadium, a theater, and practice fields for a private school.

Susie Shannon

The Executive Director of Poverty Matters, Susie Shannon, has been a community organizer, a Housing Advocate with LA Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness, and she was the Co-Producer/Director of the anti-war documentary, “Back From Iraq: The U.S. Soldier Speaks.” Shannon has testified before Congress Representative Maxine Waters on the housing crisis for the homeless and poor families in Los Angeles. Her specialty is finding housing for the homeless and low income residents in Los Angeles, often experiencing the most challenging of situations.

A question from the audience: “How can I help a homeless person that I see on my street? Where do I start?” The answer: Call 211. 211 LA County is a private, nonprofit organization, formerly known as INFO LINE of Los Angeles. It is the largest information and referral service in the nation. Since 1981 211 LA County has provided free, confidential services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in English, Spanish and more than 140 other languages via a tele-interpreting service.

Apparently, few people seem aware of the availability and workings of 211. All the panelists agreed that 211 is the best starting place for referral services in finding the correct agency or special needs for a homeless person or family and for that matter any individual seeking help or assistance. The next meeting of Valley Democrats United should invite a representative of 211 to speak about their outreach program.

Jerry Drucker

Valley Dems United Newsletter, Margie Murray, Editor

This behavior may be due to simple ignorance, although it is hard to believe that elected officials, some having been in public service for more than three decades, are still unaware of the Bill of Rights or the Brown Act.

Earlier this week, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission was taken to task for convening the body without proper notice to the public of the meeting or its agenda, a violation of California’s Brown Act, also known as the Open Meeting Law.

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

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

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

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

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

Whew!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen Box
City Watch 

Yet when City Hall makes a promise to the people of LA, it comes in a verbal assurance that gets bookended with “Don’t worry!” and “Trust me!”

The City of LA is fast to find fault with its residents and slow to accept responsibility for its mistakes, a pattern that is demonstrated by its reluctance to put things in writing when it puts the City of LA in an unfavorable position.

Consider the mid-city family who requested permission to park in their driveway, between the curb and the sidewalk. The LADOT inspected their property and a supervisor gave them a verbal assurance that their habit of parking parallel to the sidewalk while leaving it clear was within code. A decade of parking officers respected their unique use of limited space and all was well.

Then the LADOT began writing tickets.

The fight was on but the residents had nothing in writing from the LADOT’s now-retired supervisor.

The LADOT’s General Manager was purportedly following the City Attorney’s “instructions” regarding the new interpretation of the law governing apron parking, a dubious claim for two reasons.

• First, the City Attorney advises his client, the City Family, and he doesn’t direct General Managers. Unless they’re simply shifting the blame to him to avoid taking responsibility for the unpopular decision or action.

• Second, the City Attorney is often quoted for positions that don’t make it to print. Verbal CA positions are referenced in Animal Services when the volunteer program was iced, in the LAPD when policies and interpretations are debated, and in neighborhood councils when Brown Act challenges are made.

Where is this huge body of City Attorney interpretive work? Why is there no archive of City Attorney opinions that could be used to guide the City Family with some sense of even application of the law and policy?

Within Council District 13, a local community member has engaged in a campaign of Code Harassment against members of adjacent neighborhoods, one that has spanned several years and has disrupted the lives of hundreds of families.

Most recently, 177 families were subjected to Over Height Fence complaints, all within a small neighborhood that is densely populated and home to two gang injunctions.

The families received written notices of fees, fines, and penalties for non-compliance with the city’s 42” limit on front yard fences. Then the City Attorney’s office issued written notices threatening “garnishment, liens, and other legal action” if the bills weren’t paid.

Through it all, the individual families could “buy” a variance for $4800, a form of Code Harassment extortion that legalizes the illegal for a fee.

Councilmember Eric Garcetti introduced a motion calling on Planning, Building & Safety, and the City Attorney to report back with recommendations on creating tools to address the community’s desire to address public safety issues with fences.

It was in writing.

The motion also called for recommendations on lifting the financial claims and liens. This motion was followed up by a written letter to Building & Safety that called for a moratorium on any action regarding existing and new cases.

This was wonderful news to the community members who were on the receiving end of City of LA written claims and threats.

But it didn’t come with written assurance that their specific cases were covered by the moratorium, that the fees, fines, and penalties were frozen or waived, and that the threat of “garnishment, liens and other legal action” no longer applied.

Specifically, the people who had received written claims and threats from the City of LA wanted to receive written notices that the claims and threats had been rescinded.

After all, when the City of LA wanted money, it knew who they were and where they lived. What would be so hard about simply sending a followup letter from the same departments that made the initial claim, putting the new status in writing.

Eight months after the initial barrage of Code Harassment charges, no written verification of the current status has been offered by the City of LA.

Three months after the City Council motion addressing the situation, no written verification of the current status has been offered by the City of LA.

To this day, the 177 families who live under the cloud of Code Harassment have files full of written claims and threats but they do not have a written assurance from the City of LA that they are free to enjoy the verbal promises that simply never make it to paper.

This pattern of “Don’t worry!” and “Trust me!” comes from all directions, including Public Works. Even something as simple as taking the trash out includes relying on verbal assurances from a Supervisor that the location and use of dumpsters is approved.

Of course, city staff gets furloughed, transferred, and retired which leaves residents at the mercy of a verbal tradition of supervision and enforcement that gets backed up by a written system of claims and threats.

With authority comes responsibility and if City Hall wants to truly demonstrate leadership, it will start by taking responsibility for its decisions and actions by putting them in writing, not just the threats, but also the assurances of compliance and forgiveness.

Stephen Box
CityWatch 

The demise of redevelopment agencies, however, does not mean that we have to abandon the noble and necessary goal of public investment in distressed communities. To do so would punish those most in need and make it virtually impossible to address the poverty and unemployment currently faced by millions of Californians.

It is now up to the state legislature to act quickly to give cities a new tool to create good jobs, affordable housing and more sustainable communities. Here are three steps the legislature and Governor Jerry Brown can take to make this a reality.

First, scratch the word “redevelopment,” which has made many well-meaning neighborhood groups bristle at the thought of big developers coming in to “redo” things.  In 2012, California neighborhoods —while distressed — are by and large “developed” and don’t need to be flattened, cleared or re-created, as the word redevelopment implies.  In fact, many distressed communities are actually cultural landmarks and have numerous historic structures that simply need some investment.  So let’s create a Community Revitalization Program that gives cities a set of practical tools to renew and improve what’s already there.

Second, let’s make this new program fit our collective vision for 21st Century sustainable cities.  The legislature has created a new framework for sustainable urban development that has yet to receive any significant funding.  Senate Bill 375, championed by Senate Pro Tem leader Darrell Steinberg, mandates that cities and regions develop plans to integrate mass transit with housing development and create more sustainable urban environments.  Assembly Bill B32, California’s celebrated climate change amelioration bill, requires all Californians to reduce our carbon footprint during the next 18 years.  On top of these groundbreaking laws, we have the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s projected $72 billion investment in the build-out of 12 new transit lines in L.A. County, with hundreds of new transit stops projected for L.A.’s neighborhoods. Let’s give cities a tool to bring all of these mandates together — doing so would go a long way toward creating the sustainable urban environments California needs.

Finally, let’s give cities a tool to help get us out of this Great Recession.  As economist Joseph Stiglitz recently argued, we need government investment to help incentivize the kinds of things that the private market will not deliver on its own. That means living-wage jobs and careers for the people in greatest need, public infrastructure and affordable housing.

This new tool should be precision-crafted so that everyone understands what the terms are:  Public dollars can only be spent on projects that create construction careers, permanent living-wage jobs and affordable housing units for people who live in or near the areas where the development is proposed.  Investors and developers who don’t want to be part of the solution should use private banks, not scarce public dollars.

While the death of California’s redevelopment agencies is a blow to cities, this could also be a moment of opportunity to create a more vibrant, equitable and sustainable future for all Californians and a model for the country.

Madeline Janis
The Frying Pan 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen Box
CityWatch

This is happening because of the legislature’s adoption of Assembly Bill 26X, which  was upheld by the California Supreme Court on December 29, 2011. While the consequences for me are different than for the hundreds of LACRA employees who will eventually lose their livelihoods, it’s still a personal blow.

Because, for nine-and-a-half years I have devoted a significant amount of volunteer time to making redevelopment a winning proposition for low-income communities in Los Angeles. While I admit that I have not always been successful, I believe that my efforts have helped to improve the lives of thousands of Angelenos.

It wasn’t supposed to end this way. Under a compromise proposal, AB 27X, the legislature and governor said that redevelopment agencies could continue their important work, so long as they made a minimum $1.7 billion contribution to help alleviate the state budget crisis. Unfortunately, some of the agencies got greedy and challenged the constitutionality of AB 26X. The state Supreme Court said that while AB 26X was legal, AB 27X was – oops – unconstitutional. Which for the redevelopment agencies was kind of a perfect storm of bad news. Instead of a half/full cup compromise, the agencies – and the cities they support – got nothing.

What went wrong? Why couldn’t redevelopment agencies reach a compromise with the state legislature — which, after all – was only trying to find a way to save public education and other essential public services?

Let’s start with the reasons for the failures of the last year. In January, 2011, when the governor proposed eliminating redevelopment agencies, city officials could have – but didn’t – immediately reach out to the low-income community leaders, churches, unions, environmentalists and affordable housing advocates who have always strongly supported public investment in community revitalization.

They could have worked with these groups to come up with a few compromises, such as agreeing to stop funding stadiums and golf courses, and to focus the funding on truly essential items like affordable housing, the creation of good jobs in poor communities and transit-oriented development to reduce our carbon footprint. They could have also shown the governor and legislature that a broad range of Californians believe in a vision for economic development, especially one that can help lift us out of this Great Recession.

Unfortunately, while there were some notable efforts to reach out to some constituencies, most interested parties decided to go it alone. The California Redevelopment Association fought the reforms. The affordable housing developers tried to focus on saving only their pieces of the pie. The top 10 California cities tried to come together but mostly fought amongst themselves.

So what’s next? First, let’s take a moment to celebrate the successes of redevelopment over the past 65 years since it was first created in 1945, under Governor Earl Warren. Billions were invested to dramatically rebuild dilapidated downtowns, such as those in Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco and San Diego. This created millions of jobs for Californians and hundreds of thousands of low-income housing units for growing numbers of homeless or near-homeless families living on the streets of Los Angeles and other urban centers.

In the last 10 years, redevelopment agencies – especially Los Angeles’ – placed a greater emphasis on the creation of living wage jobs and construction careers for area residents, as well as deeper investment in affordable housing and key amenities in impoverished neighborhoods. There were a number of stand-out projects such as the Pacoima Plaza project, which created hundreds of living-wage jobs at a Costco store built on an abandoned industrial Brownfield site in the blue collar community of Pacoima.

Second, the legislature needs to act quickly to give cities a new tool to help create good jobs, affordable housing and more sustainable communities; to help cities support the 99 percent who are suffering from this Great Recession. This time, let’s scratch the word “redevelopment.” In 2012, California neighborhoods—while distressed—are by and large “developed” and don’t need to be flattened, cleared or recreated, as that word implies.

How about a newly created Community Revitalization Law that gives cities a set of practical tools to implement the mandates of Senate Bill 375 – California’s sustainable land-use law – and AB 32– California’s celebrated climate change amelioration bill? And – while we’re at it – let’s make sure that we focus our energies on creating living-wage jobs, affordable housing for everyone and that we put a big sign on the door that says, Our House Is Your House.

Madeline Janis|
The Frying Pan 

Dangerously wobbling at the front of a somewhat over-the-top float, this Trigger, though dead, looked fat and healthy.

The state budget Triggers, on the other hand, very much alive, looked downright cadaverous. Cutting the 2011-12 state budget by another $891 million, these automatic robo-cut devices carved a whole new round of deadly wounds through the already-devastated usual suspects.

A Quick Review of the 2011-12 Budget Trigger Provisions

The budget, adopted on time in July, projected General Fund revenues for 2011-12 at about $88.5 billion. The trigger devices, however, provided that, if, in the December just passed, revenues for the rest of 2011-12 were forecast to be lower than anticipated by between one and $2 billion, 600 million in additional cuts were to go into effect (so-called “tier one” cuts). If the revenue gap amounted to more than 2 billion, additional cuts of up to $1.9 billion were to be triggered (“tier two”).

Specifically, under Tier One, if revenue projections were off by between one and two billion, the UC system would lose another $100 million, CSU the same, the Department of Developmental Services the same. In Home Supportive Services would lose another $110 million, prisons another $92 million, and childcare an additional $23 million. The Community Colleges lose another $30 million which they are allowed to backfill with fee increases to students. Medi-Cal cuts made last March would be extended to all managed care plans to save another $15 million.

Tier Two, which was to kick in if revenue projections were off by more than $2 billion, would reduce the school year in 2011-12 by up to seven days, to save $1.5 billion. Home-to-school transportation would be eliminated, saving $248 million, and the community colleges would be denied a $72 million dollar apportionment increase.

What Happened in December

Revenue was predicted to come in at $2.2 billion less than budgeted. Believe it or not, this was the rosier of two projections, which the trigger provisions allowed the Governor to use. The Department of Finance projected $86.2 billion in revenues, while the Legislative Analyst predicted $84.8 billion. Revenues were up by 1.8 billion (which was still less than the rosy projection of the budget), mainly due to higher than expected personal income tax revenues (almost entirely from high earners) of $1.5 billion. Corporation tax was also up by almost $500 million. Lower and middle income groups showed a decline.

The Governor, having insisted on the triggers in the budget so he wouldn’t have to go back to a chaotic legislature for more cuts, and wouldn’t have to actually make a decision, himself, to cut, explained his lack of choice in Latin. Demonstrating his usual combination of seminarian and erudite Californian, he spread his hands and said, “Nemo dat quod non habet,” which means “No one can give that which he does not have.”

Never mind that this rule is usually used to figure out who owns something when a person who didn’t have the right to it sold it to a purchaser who didn’t know the title was bad. In this case, the Governor simply used the phrase to figuratively turn out his empty pockets and shrug.

The result? Piled on to over $15 billion in cuts in the original 2011-2012 budget, which followed over $7.8 billion in cuts in 2010-11, the triggers cut an additional $981 million from an already bloody budget.

Cuts to Higher Education

On top of $1.3 billion already cut in July, the UC system and the CSU system each got slashed another $100 million each. They are tasked with figuring out how to allocate the cuts across their system.

The community colleges lost $30 million and were allowed to backfill the loss with a $10 per unit increase in student fees on top of a similar hike just months earlier. The total now is $46 per unit, which, although we are still 49th in what we charge per unit at our community colleges (New Mexico is now lower), is still out of reach for a significant portion of our students. Last year, 56 % of community college students got low-income waivors and the Chancellor’s office believes this will jump to 70%.

The greater problem, though, is that the community colleges system, under the portion of the Tier Two cuts which did go into effect, actually sustained an additional $72 million in cuts by reduced apportionments, which is not covered by the new fee. This means further diminution of classes, slots, faculty and services.

Cuts to K-12 Education

Because the revenues were not as low as might have been expected, the second trigger was not fully pulled. Instead, K-12 avoided the $1.5 billion dollar cut that would have reduced the school year by seven full class days. Emblematic of the times, a “mere” 330 million cut from school districts across the state was met with a sigh of relief. 80 million was cut from prop 98 funds by reducing apportionments to school districts. The greatest devastation was to the school transportation program, which bore 248 of the 330 million in cuts. School districts were told to pay for needed buses out of reserves, but most didn’t have any reserves left. The Los Angeles Unified School District lost $38 million, leading the Superintendent to say they would have to shut down school buses in the spring, stranding 35,000 students, including 13,000 special needs students. L.A. Unified quickly filed a suit to block the cuts.

Cuts to Child Care

The Department of Education lost an additional 23 million dollars in child care funding, which broke down to $17 million in non-Prop 98 funds, and $5.9 million in Prop 98. This translates to a loss of roughly 7500 subsidized slots, impacting working parents, who are simply stranded without care.

Cuts to Everything Else

The In Home Supportive services program lost an additional $101.5 million, which was divided between a $10 million diminution in local anti-fraud efforts and all the rest in a direct reduction in services to low-income elderly and sick Californians. A suit was filed over these cuts.

The Department of Developmental Services lost $100 million, Corrections was cut by $20 million, the California State Library lost $16 million, and Medi-Cal lost an additional$ 8.6 million when the March 2011 cuts to managed care plans were continued into this year.

A Juvenile Justice Bait and Switch

In a scratch-your-head sort of development, the triggers also cut $67.7 million to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for juvenile offenders, but the Governor is demanding that this loss be backfilled by charging counties more for juveniles incarcerated by the state. This is interesting for several reasons. Over the last 15 years, beginning in 1996, when the juvenile population incarcerated by the state was more than 10,000, the state began devolving responsibility for youthful offenders down to the counties. Today, there are only about 1,000 young offenders, those who have committed the most serious crimes, spread over the five state facilities. Currently, counties have to pay about $500 to the state for each one.

Now, the Governor proposes filling the cut made by the trigger by raising the amount charged to the counties from $500 per prisoner to $125,000 per prisoner, which, he maintains, is still less that the $200,000 per year they cost the state.

As Kurt Vonnegut would say (not in Latin):

So it goes.

Next: The New Budget, yes, New Taxes, maybe

Sheila Kuehl
Sheila Kuehl.org

Brown is a savvy, 50-year veteran of California politics – so to suggest he was naïve to something that Grover Norquist politicians had made crystal clear over the past decade is laughable. But it’s also insulting because Jerry Brown himself obstructed much of what Democrats in the legislature pushed in 2011 – from vetoing the state budget in June, to vetoing Mark Leno’s legislation in October for a local vehicle license fee, to undercutting a real grassroots effort for a “millionaire’s tax.” In a lot of ways, it’s even worse than President Obama being surprised that Republicans in Washington DC did not want bipartisanship.

I’m not going to raise a Casablanca analogy, because readers can make it themselves. In an interview with the Chronicle’s Wyatt Buchanan published earlier this week, Jerry Brown said one regret he had on his first year as Governor was that he did not expect how recalcitrant the Republican minority in the legislature would be.

“I learned that Republicans can’t vote for a tax,” he said. “That was not evident.”

Brown must not have been paying attention, when he was Mayor of Oakland from 1998 to 2006 – and California Attorney General from 2006 to 2010. During that time, virtually all Republicans in the Assembly and State Senate have signed the Grover Norquist tax pledge, saying they will never vote for a tax increase in any way, shape or form. It led to the budget crisis in 2003 that kicked Gray Davis out of office, and it plagued the whole Schwarzenegger Administration.

As far back as 2002, any Republican in Sacramento who defected on the “no tax” pledge got a right-wing primary challenger – supported by the Party leadership. In 2009, when one member dared suggest some tax increases are inevitable because both sides have to make concessions, Los Angeles radio shock-jocks John and Ken put up a graphic on their website with his head severed on a pike. Later that year, when the State Senate Minority Leader voted for Governor Schwarzenegger’s compromise budget measure, his Republican colleagues immediately voted to strip him of his title.

It was obvious to even the most casual observer that Republicans would never support any tax increase. In a deep-blue state like California, the GOP can never hope to win a majority. In other states, the possibility of running the legislature (if they play their cards right) gives Republicans an incentive to be reasonable. But in California, they only need to listen to their Tea Party base. A 2009 study by University of Chicago researchers compared all 50 state legislatures, and found California Republicans to be the most conservative – even worse than Texas.

And it has given us a blue state with an Alabama budget. Every single year, the GOP minority used and abused the “two-thirds” vote requirement to pass a state budget – obstructing simply because they could. We finally passed Proposition 25 in November 2010 that allows a simple majority to pass the budget – but tax increases still need two-thirds. And in a classic example of “one step forward, two steps back,” voters also passed Proposition 26 – which requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature for fee increases.

So pardon me if I don’t believe Brown could be so naïve to expect anything less. And I don’t have much sympathy even if it were true, because as Governor Jerry Brown has actively made the situation worse – by empowering the GOP minority with his veto pen.

2011 was the first year that we could pass a budget with a simple majority – and with tough fiscal times, Democrats made tough choices that directly hurt their constituencies. As Art Pulaski of the California Labor Federation said in June: “it’s a profound shame that as a result of Republicans blocking a fair budget, California families are left exposed by budget uncertainty that could lead to more cuts to schools, public safety and other important services down the line. This budget is the only current viable solution to prevent massive, immediate cuts that would crater our economy for years to come. We urge the Governor to sign.”

Instead, Jerry Brown vetoed the budget – which effectively forced the legislature back to the drawing board, empowering Republicans to demand even further budget cuts and concessions.

While our state’s schools and hospitals crumble amid Sacramento’s turmoil, many have advocated we should empower local government to raise revenue. If Orange County voters want to live in their gated communities and send GOP obstructionists to the State Capitol, liberal places like San Francisco should have the right to step in and address their problems with taxes. Which is why the Democratic legislature passed State Senator Mark Leno’s SB 223 – to allow for a local vehicle license fee. The legislature had passed this in prior years, but Arnold Schwarzenegger had vetoed it numerous times.

Guess what? In October, Jerry Brown vetoed it too – calling it a piecemeal approach. “What does he think that we’ve been doing unsuccessfully for the past eight years,” Mark Leno told the Bay Citizen at the time. “Arnold Schwarzeneggerdestroyed this state by eliminating a revenue source worth $6 billion annually to California – that was the vehicle license fee.”

Now, Governor Brown says we need to put a tax increase on the ballot in November 2012 – because we’re in a budget crisis, and the state needs more revenue. But rather than galvanize the state against these right-wing obstructionists and tap into the frustration against the 1%, Brown has strong-armed unions and the Democratic leadership into raising the sales tax and a very modest income tax increase on most Californians that will expire in four years. Meanwhile, progressives like the Courage Campaign have proposed a much more popular “millionaire’s tax” that only affects those making over $1 million a year – and taps into the populist anger of the Occupy movement.

Suddenly realizing that Republicans aren’t going to compromise while actively starving the public sector certainly makes Jerry Brown look like Barack Obama. But Brown should not get away with it like Obama does. In The Bridge, the most comprehensive biography of the President to date, author David Remnick describes how Obama was elected President of the Harvard Law Review with support from conservative students. As I wrote in a May 2010 review of Remnick’s book, “dealing with Republicans in Congress was a wholly different ballgame that Professor Obama was [not] prepared to understand or appreciate.”

Jerry Brown doesn’t have Obama’s excuse that he was somehow “new” to the scene. He is a savvy politician who was Governor for two terms in the Seventies, and then came back in the late Nineties – while Republicans were getting more and more controlled by their Party’s right-wing. And It’s an outrage that the Chronicle gave him a pass.

Paul Hogarth
Beyond Chron 

At stake was a nasty battle between Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada-Flintridge) and Assembly Speaker John Perez (D-Los Angeles), who had threatened furloughs of Portantino’s staff, slashed Portantino’s staff budget, cut staff travel reimbursements, and even prevented Portantino’s staff from printing routine proclamations for local leaders.

According to Portantino and other close observers, the punitive action by Perez and the State Assembly’s Rules Committee began as retribution for several votes of conscience by the three-term La Cañada-Flintridge assemblymember, who had failed to fall in line with several of the Speaker’s heavy-handed directives. In particular, Portantino voted against a prison realignment measure he felt would have increased crime and unfairly burdened Los Angeles County. Portantino then also was the lone Democrat to oppose a June budget vote, which he felt cut education funding drastically and hastily.

Anthony Portantino with District Director Julia Hines.

“Judge Frawley saw through the rather thin arguments of the State Assembly’s attorneys,” Portantino said late Friday after word came that the Assembly had declined to challenge Frawley’s ruling and cancelled a public hearing scheduled for that morning.

“I’m ecstatic that the judge gave a decisive ruling on behalf of transparency and accountability,” Potantino continued. “There’s no greater fundamental right than the public’s right to know how its money is being spent by the legislature.”

To prove that he had not overspent his budget as the Speaker’s office had maintained, Portantino had requested access to spending records for all Assembly members, a demand that was denied and that led to the impasse between the two newspapers and the Assembly.

Going forward, Portantino hopes that issues in the State Assembly now can be judged on their merit and that policy can go forward, not on the ability of Assembly leaders to punish or reward members based on their votes, but on what is good for California’s citizens.

“This issue is no longer about me. The press and others have done a very good job of showing how my budget was cut midyear,” Portantino said. “What’s important now is that we move forward, reform the way the state conducts its business, and focus on the problems the state faces — in particular, putting people to work and providing quality education for all our children.”

Portantino terms out of the Assembly next year and is reportedly looking for other ways to serve his constituents.

“Let’s get rid of the petty politics, move on, open the books, have accountability, and best serve the people of California,” he concluded.

Dick Price, Editor

Assemblymember Anthony Portantino

Faced with the unprecedented closure of the 44th State Assembly offices, Assemblymember Anthony Portantino’s staff has decided to turn a bad situation into a great opportunity.

On Wednesday, October 5th at 4 pm, Assemblymember Portantino and his staff will open the doors to the district office in Pasadena for “LemonAid” – a food-raiser for local food banks and a chance to learn more about state services and how to access them when the doors to the Assembly District Office are closed for 40 days.

“We all know the saying, ‘When life hands you lemons, make lemonade’. That’s what we’ll be doing at the District Office on October 5th,” explained Portantino. “My staff realized there were many folks in the district who are also faced with layoffs and cutbacks at their jobs. So, they decided to turn the closure of the district office into a chance to help others. It’s unfair for Assembly leadership to try to get to me by attacking my staff and disenfranchising the good folks who live in the 44th district. But, I am proud that my staffers have decided to make the best of a bad situation and further show their commitment to the residents we all serve.”

Anthony Portantino with District Director Julia Hines.

As many articles and editorials across the state have explained, Assembly leaders are unfairly punishing the residents of Assembly District 44 by shuttering both the capitol and district offices for almost six weeks; it is political payback for Assemblymember Portantino’s “no” vote on the budget earlier this summer. Since then, both capitol and district staffers have been told they will be furloughed without pay and the offices will be closed from October 21 – November 30.

To help residents of the district while the offices are closed, staffers will be showing constituents of the 44th A.D. how to access state agencies and resources. The office routinely fields calls for questions about state social services such as unemployment insurance, public assistance benefits, Department of Motor Vehicles, business licenses and more.

Wednesday, October 5 from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Office of Assemblymember Anthony Portantino
215 N. Marengo Ave, Pasadena (corner of Walnut)

Wendy Gordon

Office of Assemblymember Portantino