The scene was the City Council Chamber on Thursday where Griffith Park booster Tom LaBonge held court over a critical moment in the debate over the future of Billy, the elephant with the head-nodding tic, and others of his kind at the L.A. Zoo.
His colleagues, Councilmen Tony Cardenas and Richard Alarcon, had come up with a bizarre plan to halt construction midstream of the new $40 million elephant exhibit and buy 100 acres in the Valley for a sanctuary for elephants in the wide open spaces of the Valley.
It was a crowd-pleasing idea for many who think the giant pachyderms shouldn’t be cooped up in a zoo even if the care deeply about preserving the park – and idiotic to those who think Griffith Park is more endangered than elephants would be in their carefully-designed new home.
Then, out of nowhere, Committee Chairman LaBonge asked how many golfers were in the room. Noticing only one he announced, “I want to take the golf course and give it to the zoo.”
Or maybe he said: “I would like to take the golf course to create an elephant sanctuary at the Zoo in Griffith Park.”
Or “I would like to take land from the golf course to create an elephant sanctuary at the Zoo in Griffith Park.”
Or maybe what he said, as he insists, was this: “Ideally, I would take the golf course to create an elephant sanctuary at the Zoo in Griffith Park.”
It’s hard to know exactly what he said because the little snippet of meeting that lasted for hours is missing from audio podcast on the city website.
That was suspicious enough but nothing compared to the sinister motives imputed to LaBonge who, like everyone in City Hall, arouses suspicion in almost everything he says and does. In LaBonge’s case, the suspicion runs deep because of his propensity to ham it up and make statements that suggest he’d like to see Griffith Park become a major tourist attraction instead of an urban wilderness with a few public facilities.
“I was surprised that GLAZA (zoo supporters) members applauded the concept. They were not concerned about evicting a segment of Griffith Park recreationists who have been established for nearly a century (golfers) and– just as important — demolishing habitat that the Park’s wild animals depend on for survival,” recalled one participant.
“I thought he was serious. I was surprised that he came out in public and said so.”
Through emails and text messages and phone calls, LaBonge’s remark created an uproar in activist circles. He says he never intended for his remark to be taken seriously and would never do anything to detract from the experience of golfing in the park or the freedom of coyotes and deer to run freely across the many acres of fairways and greens.
A lot of people don’t believe him. They think he wants to seek all kinds of developments in the park, to see it become a kind of Disneyland rather than the wonderland it is.
I’m revisiting this event because it’s indicative on one of the fundamental problems in the civic and political culture of Los Angeles.
Large numbers of people don’t trust City Hall. Too many back room deals, too much special interest influence, too little transparency and concern for the welfare of the city and its residents and businesses.
Personally, I talked to LaBonge and believe he didn’t really mean he wants to take part of Harding Golf Course, one of my favorites, for the zoo.
But I understand the public’s skepticism. The mistrust of City Hall runs to deep and for good reason. Everything our elected officials and bureaucrats say and do is looked at darkly by large numbers of people, especially those who follow what goes on closely.
And worse than that, it’s clear that they don’t think it matters. They think that the millions they raise from special interests will allow them to remain in power forever and forever to be able to use massive advertising campaigns to get approval for whatever they want.
Thousands of people across the city have worked for years to try to change things but with no success. Their belief is that things are getting worse.
I agree with them. I wish I had a magic wand and could get just one of our city officials to find the courage to stand up for openness and honesty, for respect for the community and their values even when they are in a minority.
President-elect Barack Obama talks of these things, of change and hope. I’m certain nearly every one of our elected officials voted for him. Too bad they don’t emulate him.
Or maybe what he said, as he insists, was this: “Ideally, I would take the golf course to create an elephant sanctuary at the Zoo in Griffith Park.”
It’s hard to know exactly what he said because the little snippet of meeting that lasted for hours is missing from audio podcast on the city website.
It’s not surprising that LaBonge’s comment (duplicitous LaBonge) is mysteriously missing from the official City Council video. It’s been editted out by the crooked LA City Clerk’s office. I’m sure everyone realizes by now that the criminals are not only in lockup but they’re running City Hall. BTW, it’s not the first time that the City Clerk’s office has been caught doing something blatantly illegal. City Council covers it up, often in a inept manner, to protect “their own”. The “blue wall of silence” has nothing on criminal Garcetti’s setup at City Hall.
Boy, Anon, have you got that right!!!!
March 9, 2009 will soon be here. It is a sea change for the Daily News who finally is reporing on the SFV and local news rather than relying on AP. It includes the names of people challenging the Mayor and the City Council as well as Comptroller, City Attorney and a reprise of the Valley in the Obama and Prop 8 campaigns.
Interesting!
It was a crowd-pleasing idea for many who think the giant pachyderms shouldn’t be cooped up in a zoo — and idiotic to many others who think Griffith Park is more endangered than elephants would be in their carefully-designed new home.
Got to be careful here. Cardenas’s two motions — only one of which was heard at last week’s controversial Arts Parks Health and Aging committee meeting chaired by LaBonge — do not give the public an EITHER-OR choice.
Let me say this again:
Cardenas’s two motions do not give the public an EITHER-OR choice.
Whether Billy is moved to a sanctuary or not does NOT depend on whether LaBonge takes part of Harding Golf Course for a sanctuary.
Supporters of Billy moving to a sanctuary somewhere are NOT AT ODDS WITH supporters of Griffith Park becoming a historic landmark and preserving the historic elements of the park, including Harding Golf Course.
This cannot be emphasized enough.
I’ve placed the important portions of both motions in my comments on Ron’s first article on this subject and you can read them here http://ronkayela.com/2008/11/elephants-to-roam-free-on-hard.html for yourself, but you’ll see that:
1. CF 08-2849 calls for a brand new “Elephant Satellite Sanctuary Advisory Group (ESSAG)” to search for 60 acres on private OR PUBLIC lands in the City to create a new elephant sanctuary.
2. CF 08-2850 calls for all work to stop on the sanctuary; to outlaw elephant exhibits at the Zoo, and to get a CLA/CAO report on a) Costs associated with transferring the remaining elephant (Billy) to an elephant sanctuary; b) Alternative uses for the current Elephant Pachyderm exhibit and the possible transfer of other zoo animals into the intended Elephant Pachyderm Exhibit; c) Status of elephant exhibits that have closed and currently do house elephants on the zoos premise throughout the United States; d) Fiscal implications for closing the elephant Pachyderm Exhibit.
Last week’s meeting was about the second council file (08-2850) only.
So in reading the main points of 08-2850, where is it that land from Griffith must be taken for a larger elephant sanctuary? NOWHERE, BECAUSE IT ISN’T THERE.
Taking Harding is not THE answer. Besides, Harding’s 18th green (not the 13th) isn’t anywhere near 60 acres like CF 08-2849 calls for….
So why did LaBonge even mention his idea of taking Harding land for the Zoo? Because he saw an opening for an idea he’s had for ages, that’s why.
This is the deal with this particular councilmember – once he has an idea, good or bad it seems, he never lets go of it. Something you think is dead in the water will resurface suddenly maybe years or even a decade later as LaBonge sees an opening.
This is indicative of a person and a politician that never moves forward, whose viewpoint remains at a fixed point in time.
LaBonge has had some substantial measure of control over Griffith Park for nearly four decades, and it has never been a more complete control of the park as now. The same ideas LaBonge had when he first learned about Walt Disney, standing near the Griffith Park Merry-go-round, looking at all that park land and envisioning another Disneyland there, are still the same ideas he moves on today whenever an opening appears. That’s what happened at the hearing last week – an opening appeared for one of his old ideas and he absolutely could not help himself. He jumped right on it, and got caught immediately. Hence the embarrassed retraction as it being a “joke”.
You know, LaBonge shows no signs of ever moving forward with the rest of us as the times, the public needs and perceptions, and the understanding of best management practices for parks and recreation evolve.
How sad that is… for the public who keeps having to fight the same fight over and over and over again, and for the councilmember himself whose true love of Griffith Park could result in the park being a modern model of best management practices in recreation, preservation, and wildlife management.
Oh well. I guess I’m just an idealist. Silly me.
So this explains why people jump at anything this councilmember says / intimates / threatens / orders. They know he means it because he’s tried it before, and he’ll try it again, no matter the merit or lack of the idea in question.
Be warned:
The restoration of Toyon Canyon back to the natural habitat it was before someone had the idea to put a landfill in a City park is next, folks. Keep your eyes peeled for the formal closure plan calling for habitat restoration for this landfill in the middle of the wilderness area of Griffith Park to magically change into ball fields or large group party (called “picnic”) facilities or something else manufactured and developed as soon as an opening presents itself to a councilmember suspended in time and space.
This is excellent coverage of a day-in-the-life event at City Hall that, as Ron points out, illustrates why people mistrust City government. A simple idea…shall we send our lone elephant to a happier and exponentially more affordable home at a proven elephant reserve, or should we remain, as one commenter points out, “fixed in time,” telling ourselves to abide by the status quo because its good for the–fill in the blank–elephant, children, civic ego, Zoo’s box office, etc. Then, in flies the retrograde suggestion that we bulldoze parkland that shelters our City’s last significant population of wild creatures so we can look at captive animals behind fences. Not a pretty picture.
Is Harding Golf Course one of the many golf courses across the country that were developed on top of closed dumps (landfills)?