My only qualification for the job of deciphering L.A. Times stories that do their best to obscure the truth about what the hell is going on in this town might be the two years I studied Sanskrit in college, a dead language much like that often used by the city’s dominant news source.
“L.A. generosity flows in Mid-City..City puts up millions to see real estate group CIM finish Midtown Crossing development”
Those are the headlines above a story today at the bottom of the California section. The story backs in softy to an account of how CIM Group, a well-connected Westside developer that has flourished in the last 15 years often with the help of its City Hall connections.It isn’t mentioned on the front page of latimes.com and can only be found two clicks later well down on the website’s local news page.
Eventually, we learn CIM has projects, some in serious trouble, that the city and city employee pension funds have been throwing good money after bad at, particularly the Midtown Crossing project at Pico and San Vicente.
Despite misgivings of its members, the Community Redevelopment Agency recently called for the city to up its subsidy from $5 million to $14 million in the project. You can bet the mayor along with Councilman Herb Wesson who has been very helpful to CIM twisted a few arms to get that vote.
What’s astonishing about this story is that near the end of it we learn why we the taxpayers are giving away our money to rich developers.
“Redevelopment officials argue that without the subsidy CIM Group would achieve a financial return of only 7 % on its project — lower than typical developments. Still unclear is how much advertising revenue the company would obtain by winning approval of the special sign district.”
The sign district, being sought by CIM pal Herb Wesson, would allow the company to make a lot of money because the site could have signage that “display ‘supergraphics’ — vinyl advertisements permitted by city law only in special cases.”
So there you have it: They’re going to give away our money to fat-cat developers who aren’t satisfied by a 7 % return on their investment in order for them to make 20 % on a project that will create a lot of low-paying retail jobs and poison the visual environment with hideous signage that encourages materialistic obsession.
Of course, that’s just the interpretation of a failed Sanskrit scholar whose headline across the top of the paper’s front page might have read:
“CITY HALL GIVEAWAY…Taxpayer money goes to boost developer’s profits”
One of the interesting aspects of the story overlooked by the Times is how CIM Group has used its money to influence CIty Hall.
For several years, the company showed its “generosity” to the pols by giving to their campaigns but that appears to have stopped two years ago. Since 2006, CIM has been using lobbyists to tap into the city treasury — to the tune of $1 million in lobbyist fees during that time, according to the City Ethics reports (which truly are as indecipherable as Sanskrit).
Here’s the lobbyists listed in the reports: Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP; Brown/Meshul Inc; Armbruster & Goldsmith LLP – that’s a lot of heavy arm-twisting, the kind that has the clout to get results at City Hall.
So there’s your Sanskit lesson for today: If you want a streetlight in your neighborhood so kids don’t get run down or other modest improvements, hire lobbyists.
Or you can join hands with other woebegone taxpayers all over the city and form a concerned citizens coalition that will give you the clout you need to stop these outreagous giveaways and get City Hall to serve you, and not the special interests.
Ron –
I’m so glad you noticed this, too. Zanhiser should sue his headline-writer for malpractice.
Everyone should read this article. It documents City Hall’s routine practice of “welfare for the rich,” and demonstrates why we should abolish the CRA, which now redistributes about $530 million PER YEAR from the middle class to the rich.
Bastille Day, here we come!
Also, to anyone reading this, you are hereby invited to my Rally in the Valley next Saturday, June 28, 2008, at CSUN. Visit my website for details.
Walter Moore
http://WalterMooreForMayor.com
July 4, 2008
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Funny, isn’t it? History repeats itself!!!
July 14th at City Hall Teddy Howell
Touche, 9:16am
See you on the 14th.
Just the day before, June 19th, David Zahniser wrote about a judge’s ruling halting the city’s enforcement of its illegal billboard ban — with a more appropriately descriptive headling. David’s been following the billboard issue, and has been pretty straightforward about it, including Rocky Delgadillo’s having received a half million in free ads from Clear Channel/CBS Outdoors for his City Attorney run, and the unseemliness of his having accepted a lavish party from them on his behalf just a few months ago. (Jill Stewart and Christine Pelisek in the L A Weekly have even more detail since the fight against these companies became personal for the Weekly, when they refused to hand over the list of their billboards as required by law and as is customary in other cities — citing a deal with Rocky that this is “proprietary” info, and claiming that in fact, they’re allowed to put up even more and bigger supergraphic billboards.)
On the 19th Zahniser writes about Judge Audra Collins ordering a stay on the city’s right to enforce its ordinance against supergraphics and illegal billboards, pending the right of two companies in question (one of which has a gigantic GAP ad on Pico in WLA that is opposed by residents and CM Weiss) to appeal. “The city’s b billboard rules are being challenged in more than a dozen lawsuits. Insite and World Wide Rush argued that, despite the rules prohibiting freeway billboards, at least five Outdoors signs have been permitted near freeways, at locations such as near Staples Center.”
Judge Audra Collins opines, “The plaintiffs have persuasively demonstrated that, despite the city’s interests in safety and aesthetics that support its ban on signs within 2000 feet of a freeway, the city has permitted giant commercial billboards in these areas that directly undermine those interests.”
In other words, because Clear Channel/CBS Outdoors has been allowed to get away with erecting illegal billboards with City approval, other companies can claim the same rights to do so — making the laws a farce and unenforcable. Even, apparently, in an area far from freeways like the Pico sign near the Westside Pavilion.
How did ClearChannel/ CBS Outdoors get to erect those illegal billboards, over the staunch objections of Jack Weiss and Wendy Greuel? The local Councilwoman in the district, Jan Perry, fought FOR the billboard companies’ right to do so, with the full force of Ed Reyes as head of PLUM == because in exchange for violating the city’s laws and refusing to pay millions due in fines, the companies promised to kick a few bucks towards a park in Perry’s district. (Pelisek and Stewart/ LA Weekly say it’s more complicated than that, that a lawsuit the company has against the MTA figures into it too.)
Jan Perry and Ed Reyes launched a full-scale attack on neighborhood anti-billboard blight activists and homeowner associations, who’ve fought to REMOVE these illegal, ugly things from their areas, like the newly redone Santa Monica Blvd. through Century City to Brentwood. They called them selfish, greedy, accused them of trying to take parks away from the poor, and dehumanizing the poor who wanted to trade an ugly, possibly dangerous 7-story lighted billboard or two for bucks toward a park. (Perry in particular totally misunderstood the situation and made unfair accusations directed to opponents.)
One of the cruxes of Perry/ Reyes’ arguments, which carried the Council — hence, Collins saying the City has given permission to known violators of the billboard ordinance — was that the westsiders and valley people who had nothing better to do than worry about aesthetics, should leave other neighborhoods to do as they wished and not interfere. Perry even said she was “helping” those areas by taking billboards they didn’t want, toward settling a legal dispute with MTA. (That was just her total misunderstanding.)
Collin’s ruling, however, is clearly based on the fact that if laws are allowed to be violated in some areas by some companies, the city can’t decree that other areas and other companies must adhere to the law. The whole ordinance for the city is now up for rehashing in more lawsuits.
So when Perry, Reyes, Wesson and the rest violate the City’s ordinance and even make it look like the litigious scofflaws are “generous benefactors” to the poor while the citizens are the bad guys, they also create a precedent which makes it impossible to enforce safety and aesthetics without a legal fight. Wesson urging kicking money to another billboard ordinance violator (assuming they are, I don’t know the law or details of the ordinance) not only gives them millions for an arguably ugly projects many nearby neighborhoods feel will negatively impact their own neighborhoods, but it also sets precedent for others doing the same in other areas which have fought to avoid this tacky, industrial look.
Pitiful. 2;27pm just pitiful. Brinks will not follow them to the grave one day.
2:27…what an intricately twisted political machine, pols and corporations oiling each other’s backs, as regular Joes toil trying to make ends meet.
I had not heard about allowing the city to use emminent domain. In my district (Westlake North) we had a primary election with a measure on the ballot against the use of emminent domain to turn residential housing into developments. In fact there were two measures on the issue. Emminent domain was meant to be used to allow the development of parks, hopitals, schools, roads and the like. Not to be used as a giveaway for developers.
I, too, believe we should have more response from our elected officials. We need safer neighborhoods, free from gang activity. A young boy was just shot down in my neighborhood by gang members. It was just next door where he was shot.