March 2009 Archives

Editor's Note: This contribution came from community activist Gary Baratta who urged
people to write, email or call their City Council member regarding the imposition on Neighborhood Council members of financial disclosure requirements as the price of opening legislative files for City Council consideration. Baratta is chairman of the planning, land use, housing and transportation committee for the Mid-town North Hollywood Neighborhood Council.
The Power of One
 
By Gary Baratta

I had the privilege of fulfilling my ethics training on Saturday March 21st at the Van Nuys government center.  Tom Griego made everything crystal clear as to the do's and don'ts of volunteerism as respects city government.
 
This ethics training is the law by which the neighborhood councils live on a daily basis.  As Tom produced screen after screen of the financial limitations on gifts, and elucidated on all the ways in which we as voluntary advisors could somehow become embroiled in a conflict of interest; I was struck by this thought:
 
How could members of City Council not become embroiled in conflicts of interest on a daily basis?  That's a thoughtful discussion I'll have on another occasion.
 
After the Valley Secession movement was defeated, the L.A. City Council decided to create a system of neighborhood councils which would "advise" them as watchdogs of the public trust.  Independent and free of special interest influence, they would be allowed to tell "truth" to the corridors of power.
 
Fast forward to 2009.  The City Council has for the first time passed an initiative allowing the NCs to actually open a file for their City "elders" perusal and adjudication.  It must be seconded by another council (since we're not that independent).
 
Enter City Council and before you know it, we're required to fill out Form 54 in order to have this "privilege".  For those of you who don't know what this form contains, I'll be happy to forward it to you on request.  It's a complete financial history of you, your spouse and/or registered partner!  Further, according to the ethics commission; this is public information and will be given to anyone who calls and asks for it!
 
This is punitive, onerous and a complete violation of our rights to advise.  A deputy city attorney once told me that in law school the first thing you're taught to do is look at the intent.  What other intention can we glean from this blatant attempt to silence our exercise in participatory democracy?!
 
I spoke against this in public forums before both the City Council, LANCC, BONC and anyone else who would listen.  My entreaties fell on deaf ears.  In each case, they knew what I would say and after allowing others to speak at length; just before I step to the microphone I'm told to be "brief"!
 
Now, it's the law.  Will you stand up now?!  Will you simply give up this right without a fight?!  Will you now be silent?!  Will you quit the council system as they're betting you will?!
 
These council files didn't really mean anything until City Council took this action.  These files could have been tabled, delayed and ignored interminably.  Instead, they had to show us that if we truly wanted this to be "participatory", we would have to be held to a standard even they are unwilling to abide by.
 
I want the Form 700's made public on all City Councilmen, as well as Department GMs.  I want a transparent government.  Our policy will be Reaganesque "Trust but Verify"!
 
I want to know every donation to a campaign from a developer, real estate magnate or corporate entity.  I want the new City Controller to audit every vote taken over just the last year to determine if there is a single instance of conflict of interest.
 
When was the last time a City Council member recused themselves from a vote because of an obvious conflict?
 
Why are IEA's considered "academic exercises"?  Why has there not been an infrastructure study done since 1998 when the City Charter mandates them yearly?  Why is the City Controller told that the mayor and city attorney are immune to such studies of their effectiveness?
 
Are we dogs to be beat down, chained and muzzled?!
 
I, for one; will not be silenced.
 
Will, but one of you; join me in protest?!  If ONE joins me and then ONE joins with you......................................

"Truthfulness (is) the highest virtue; this means the opposite of the cowardice of the "idealist" who flees from reality..." -- Friedrich Nietzsche.

Sounding a lot like the German philosopher who believed God is dead and man as supermen must reign supreme, union boss Brian D'Arcy has suddenly emerged from the world of backroom dealings and stepped onto the public stage to assume his rightful place of power and prominence in the limelight of City Hall.

It's been a long time coming.

D'Arcy, head of IBEW Local 18, has reigned supreme at the Department of Water and Power for years. He is armed with sweetheart contracts that give him more power than the utility's general manager and so much money from his 8,000 members that he could spend $1 million in the recent primary to elect Wendy Greuel as City Controller and back his self-serving Measure B solar plan -- a power grab that was beaten by the lowly mortals who call themselves community activists.

The newly visible union boss talks today with David Zahniser in the Times, heaping scorn on Neighborhood Councils as "dysfunction-palooza," environmentalists as profiteers on clean energy and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's push for 20 percent renewable energy by next year as what sounds like the costly boondoggle it is.

" 'Environmental leadership' isn't meeting some artificial deadline by any means necessary," he said. "Environmental leadership is actually creating economic development while cleaning the air where you live, putting people to work and linking the environment to it. That's not really what's going on, if you ask me."

D'Arcy -- who fought every clean energy initiative proposed for the last decade and even warned they might bankrupt the DWP -- suddenly reversed his ground 13 months ago when he announced his rooftop solar plan owned, installed and maintained by the utility.

It was a proposal largely put together in private discussions with various interests but not the DWP itself and made it on the ballot without going through Neighborhood Councils, the DWP Commission or any type of meaningful study, analysis or public discussion.

Although he spent heavily and campaigned publicly for Measure B, D'Arcy takes no responsibility for its defeat, and pointedly attacks DWP General Manager David Nahai, presumably hoping his close ally Raman Raj, the utility's No. 2 man, will take over the top post.

"Even after the election, D'Arcy continues to speak out, using his dry wit to skewer not only . . . Nahai, but the utility's efforts to secure solar power in the Mojave Desert and geothermal energy in the Salton Sea," Zahniser writes.

At times I found myself agreeing with D'Arcy and offer him faint praise as a political bully, saying: "Whatever D'Arcy wants, D'Arcy gets, and that's because they're so weak and easily intimidated. I give him high ratings for doing his job. I'd give them miserable ratings for not doing theirs.": .

D'Arcy falsely accuses me of seeking to privatize the DWP like the mayor wants to do with the LA Zoo when the goal is to get the most clean energy at the lowest price in the shortest time.

In contrast, D'Arcy's goal remains a monopoly on all energy-related jobs for his union no matter what it costs the public or how long it takes to end DWP's reliance on the dirtiest coal-burning power plants in the country.

So he remains committed to using his clout to get his rooftop solar plan enacted despite voters' rejection of it.

His position sets the stage for a showdown at City Hall that will reveal whether our officials have any political will at all or any respect for the public and whether the environmental leadership's goal is clean energy or lucrative personal deals.

FRIEND OF ANTONIO'S GOES BROKE, WHO GETS THE BILL?

Antonio benefactor and profiteer Richard Meruelo is back in the news -- it turns out even the $50 million payoff from the LAUSD board wasn't enough to keep the downtown property owner out of bankruptcy.

His company Meruelo Maddox Properties expects to follow its subsidiaries into Bankruptcy Court as early as today, the Times reports.

You might remember it was Meruelo who was Antonio's biggest contributor back in 2005, donating $193,000 to his cause -- and that he got a healthy return from Antonio's school board last summer when it agreed to pay him $50 million for the Taylor Yard property. The Downtown News broke the story two months after the board's secret vote..

Back then, I posted about it, noting Meruelo bought the property out from under LAUSD's nose at the of the property boom and sold it when the market had crashed and still made a $20 million profit.

Since Meruelo is the largest downtown property owner and the CRA has been so generous in funding his developments, it will be interesting to see just how much money the taxpayers have lost

CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR JUST OUR CIVIC CULTURE?

That's the question Jerry Sullivan asks in a headline in LA Garment & Citizen in the latest story about questionable dealings involved in the purchase of a property in the 400 block of Spring Street downtown for a park.

The article focuses on role of Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer Sr., Director of Asset Management for the city's Department of General Services and whether the city overpaid when it bought 0.8 acre for $5.6 million.

He is also secretary of the state Democratic Party and serves on its finance committee which connects him to such major local and state politcal contributors as developer Tom Gilmore, the Central City Association and Bill Witte of Related Cos., which is having so much trouble getting the Grand Avenue project going.

"Jones-Sawyer's dual roles are the latest circumstances to raise questions about the deal, following concerns expressed by some local real estate professionals and others over the price of the land on Spring Street as well as the timing and approval process for the proposed acquisition," Garment & Citizen says.

GOOD JOBS, GREEN JOBS -- LET THEM EAT PROMISES

"It seems like we're getting a stench of Chicago politics to have a continuation with an unreliable vendor." -- County Supervisor Mike Antonovich on the two-month extension MTA granted Italian rail car mark  AnsakdoBreda.

If only that were true, maybe we'd actually have a crooked political machine that works like Chicago instead of the one we have that doesn't work.

In getting his way, Antonio had to shake up the MTA board and use his clout to keep alive a $300 million deal to build 100 rail cars that based on AnsaldoBreda's past performance will be too heavy with seats too narrow and incompatible with the rest of the light rail system's cars -- if they ever get built at all.

But even the mayor was cautious as he brushed aside the recommendations of the MTA management, according to the Times.

He admitted there are "real questions" about the company which has promised numerous cities it will build local factories if the get lucratives contracts and presumably lucrative subsidies.

But having overseen creation of a budget deficit rapidly approaching $1 billion and one of the nation's highest urban unemployment rates at 12 percent, the mayor is desperate to show he can attract businesses that pay more than the "living wage."

As "green" as he likes to claim he is, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa missed his chance to lead the growing urban farming movement.

That honor belongs to First Lady Michelle Obama who last week gathered a group of students and began digging up the White House lawn to plan a vegetable garden -- a symbolic step that harkens back to Eleanor Roosevelt planting a Victory Garden on the White House lawn during World War II.

California First Lady Maria Shriver quickly followed Mrs. Obama's lead and announced today she will join the urban farming fever and plant a vegetable garden in Capitol Park in Sacramento.

I have to admit I'm not exactly the most environmentally-sensitive guy in the world but I'm learning.

For months, my wife has been talking about digging up the front lawn and planting vegetables. It has something to do with not wasting water on something as pointless as grass, saving money on food and having fresh, healthy organic produce on the dinner table.

I didn't take it seriously but then I met Tezozomoc, head of the South Central Farmers movement who raised by consciousness.

The 14-acre community farm was bulldozed in 2006 by developer Ralph Horowitz to build a warehouse for clothing maker Forever 21, whose executives have donated $1.3 million to the mayor's various campaigns and fund-raising efforts.

Because of that connection. backers of the South Central Farm hold the mayor responsible for fumbling efforts to buy the land from Horowitz and preserve what was widely seen as a positive asset to the area, bringing people together in a healthy activity and serving as a center for community life.

The warehouse still isn't built and the fight goes on and Tezozomoc has started a farmers' cooperative and is growing organic produce for sale.

Then my friend Bob Singer got his own far-out ideas into my head about how we need to return to our agrarian roots to save the planet, how we need to become vegans, how we need to put people to work as owner-farmers in the absence of industry, and rebuild community life.

He introduced me to Duane Thorin and Evelyn Hansen and others who are at the forefront of the trend.

And he work Villaraigosa back in December with what seemed like a cockamamie plan to make him the volunteer head of a Commission on Urban Farming. When he didn't hear back, he sent his letter to the mayor to OpEdNews.com which published it.

"Is the city or the nation prepared for the social dislocation, economic despair and breakdown in law and order that could occur as the crisis worsens? Are there enough police, National Guard or military to keep order when millions of out of work, out of home and out of food?

"You as Mayor can steps to mitigate the chaos and possible anarchy now before it is too late. One activity that can have the most far-reaching effects in these times of crisis is Victory Farms as put forth by Eleanor Roosevelt during the Great Depression."

Well, he still hasn't heard back from Villaraigosa and probably never will what with the mayor wanting to put up warehouses and factories and skyscrapers on every bit of open space in the city, and wanting the DWP to install solar units on what little is left unpaved under a program that's supposed to let poor people buy shares.

Now that the First Ladies of the nation and state are aboard the urban farming movement perhaps the mayor's desire to hang out with them and their friends will get the best of him and he'll respond to Bob Singer or take the initiative himself.

His support would be nice but unnecessary. Urban farming is taking root because it makes sense. It conserves dwindling water supplies, makes little plots of land productive, reduces food bills, provides healthy produce free of salmonella and chemicals and gets people off the couch and in motion.

Personally, I'm ready to join the movement myself. Anybody got a back hoe to dig up my lawn?

Antonio Villaraigosa just can't stop selling even when nobody's buying -- and that's not good.

Clean energy and good jobs was a great label for something everyone wants but the mayor couldn't get voters to buy Measure B with its empty promise of solar energy when it was nothing but a giveaway to a mismanaged public utility, its greedy union boss and a long list of consultants, contractors, lobbyists and insiders.

Now we learn just how cheap it is to buy the mayor's support, which is not to suggest that Stephen Bing's $50,000 donation to the Yes on B campaign or his $100,000 for the mayor's school board campaign represented some sort of quid pro quo.

That would illegal and so unnecessary. The pressure to contribute to the mayor's campaigns has nothing to do with Bing's decision or AIG's Tim Leiweke acts of political generosity or the $100,000 that Bruce Khouri of Solar Integrated Technology felt impelled to donate for Measure B.

According to Maeve Reston in the Times on Monday, the mayor decided to go to bat for an Italian rail car maker in a $300 million MTA deal solely because of the prospect of new union jobs. His support has nothing to do with the influence of Bing, who has a lot to gain in the deal, or well-connected lobbyist, Chris Lehane, who represents the rail car firm.

Or at least that's what mayoral spokesman Matt Szabo says. "We are talking about creating thousands of high-paying jobs at a time when local residents need them the most."

Well, hundreds maybe, but who's going to quibble about that when similar exaggerations failed to convince anyone on Measure B.

The problem is the MTA has told the Italian firm, AnsaldoBreda that it doesn't want to do business with it.

The company is three years behind schedule in delivering 50 rail cars previously ordered. And then the cars are too heavy and unreliable, incompatible with other cars in the fleet and has seats that are too narrow.

Says MTA chief Roger Snoble: "The real question is: Are we going to get the original 50 cars? All the commotion is over the future, and we tend to overlook the present... Because of the difficulties we were having with Breda, my decision -- and this is my decision -- is that we should go out to bid."

In response to that kind of attitude from Snoble and several board members, the company "has marshaled an intense lobbying effort over the last few months, striking alliances with people known to have the mayor's ear and offering to open a rail car manufacturing plant in an industrial stretch of downtown Los Angeles," the Times says.

That's where Bing comes in as founder of the green building company Shangri-La Construction which has partnered with the rail car company.

County Labor Federation chief Maria Elena Durazo also weighed in with pressure on Snoble and the MTA board warning they should not let "this big opportunity to be squandered." She was promised that all the jobs related to the project would be for union labor only.

In the insular world of City Hall politics, no one -- with the possible exception of Controller Laura Chick -- would think there is anything wrong with story of insider dealing and the influence of campaign money.

It's routine, standard operating procedure, how business is done. They all wish they were as slick as the mayor in putting these kinds of deals together and coming up with a story to sell to the public like clean energy and good jobs or in this case green factories, good union jobs.

I'm no moralist about these sorts of things. The corruption that bothers me isn't in the grease that enriches insiders as much as it is the total disregard for the public interest.

That's why LA's super-salesman mayor faces another tough sell. The public just vetoed his solar energy plan that wasn't even a plan, only a scheme that would have cost too much, taken too long and achieved too little.

In the case of this deal, we have ample evidence the rail cars don't serve our public interest since they are too heavy, too unreliable, too incompatible, have seats that are too narrow and never get delivered.

Other than that you can bet the mayor thinks he can sell this deal to the MTA board.

Maybe he can, maybe he can't.

The thing that concerns me most is what it says about Antonio's state of mind. He just barely got a majority for his re-election running against no one who posed even a remote challenge, his gofer City Attorney candidate Jack Weiss got just barely a third of the vote and he lost outright on the surest thing ever on the ballot, Measure B.

I keep thinking somehow that he'll wake up one morning and remember where he came from and the ideals he once held and go to work to serve the interests of the people instead of the special interests.

LA doesn't need a salesman offering pipe dreams, and segmenting people into those who benefit and those who pay. It needs a leader who breaks down barriers and brings people together, who works for policies that improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods and our opportunities for the future.

A reader supplies this tidbit about Brian D'Arcy's attitude toward public scrutiny that turned up in the PA Consulting charter-mandated IEA study of DWP operations and programs over the last  five years -- a report that General Manager David Nahai has refused to show any interest in.

In Appendix A of the DWP IEA study there is a list of 72 individuals that were interviewed by the PA consultants in preparing their report.  Some Individuals were interviewed more than once.

Included on the list is David Nahai; all the LADWP Commissioners; all the Directors of every DWP Department; Julie Butcher of the SEIU; Richard Slawson, Labor Union leader with the Building and Contractors Union. Just about everyone within DWP that has leadership responsibility except for one individual: Brian D'Arcy.

Check out this footnote on page 4-185 of the DWP IEA study.

"Despite our best efforts we have been unable to interview Brian D'Arcy, the Business Manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers -Local 18."

Brian D'Arcy is the most powerful figure in City Hall politics, or at least one of them. There is no uncertainty at all as to whether he is the most feared.

It is as if he had the letters H-E-L-P tattooed to the knuckles of his right hand and the letters H-U-R-T tattooed to the knuckles of his left hand.

Wendy Greuel knows about HELP from the hand of Brian D'Arcy and the price she will have to pay in due time for the IBEW boss' coughing up $250,000 when the councilwoman panicked in the closing weeks of the City Controller race and thought she might be forced into a runoff.

Antonio Villaraigosa got even more money from members of D'Arcy's union and has been paying him back ever since by signing off on a contract that gave the nation's highest paid utility workers 6 percent pay raises during these troubled times. DWP workers, nearly all members of the IBEW, now are paid about $90,000 a year on average with lucrative lifetime benefits.

Few know exactly how D'Arcy hurts because only a fool would have the courage to cross him.

That's what makes the aftermath of the defeat of Measure B so interesting.

In a city that worships at the Temple of Ego, DWP GM David Nahai is a shining superstar -- if a giant image of him flashing these days on digital billboards along Sunset Boulevard qualifies for entry into the Pantheon of Super Egos.

Not that Nahai's credentials in this regard aren't already impeccable. He's plastered his image all over the DWP building, on every publication it produces, even in the bag of two CFL light bulbs he spent $3.5 million of our money to give us in expectation of our undying gratitude.

Last summer, the man who lectures us on conservation and hikes our rates every month while the blackouts get more frequent and the water less plentiful got caught with his own home power and water consumption at levels two or three times that of the normal person.

Now, the billboards at North Kings Road and Sunset show him as he thinks of himself -- a larger than life figure who is ready to humbly serve the city's peasants as the next mayor, if Antonio doesn't fire him first for the humiliating defeat of Measure B.

Nahai, needless to say, is unrepentant and unmoved by the will of the people, saying he has long favored the DWP owning, installing and maintaining rooftop solar units for all of us. Of course, he never did anything about it until the mayor for his own political advantage decided it was a good thing.

So he slapped together a plan for three times as much solar as Measure B provided, and feigned objectivity as he ran all over town peddling his myth.

Now he wants to move forward as if the blank check for solar that voters denied him was sitting on his desk and ready to be squandered.

"This is not a time for finger-pointing," he told the Times. "It is a time to move forward. And as I said, this was not a vote against solar, nor was it a vote against city-owned solar. The misgivings had to do with other issues."

Far be it for me to suggest Nahai tells lies when he's not flattering himself -- I leave that to his staff -- but the fact is that voters rejected the propoal for a DWP monopoly on solar. This is not your grandfather's DWP when it was run by professionals instead of politicians and egotists like Nahai and greedy power-hungry union bosses like the IBEW's Brian D'Arcy.

Unfortunately for Nahai, D'Arcy is the leading finger-pointer, blaming the DWP GM for Measure B's defeat.

As the man who bankrolled Measure B with nearly $1 million of his union members' money, D'Arcy seems to think Nahai is the perfect candidate for the role of fall guy.

He accused Nahai of placing too much emphasis on feed-in tariffs, which would give the revenue from solar installations to the home and business owners who buy the units. D'Arcy's problem with that is it would actually stimulate business, really create thousands of jobs and get a lot of skilled trades workers out of the unemployment line.

"He is not a friend of Measure B, and the department as it relates to Mr. Nahai was not a proponent of Measure B," D'Arcy said.

There is some truth in what D'Arcy said for a change. The department was not a supporter of Measure B because it was a fraud that could never deliver on its promises and the department is not a friend of Nahai's.

A man without a friend in Brian D'Arcy is a man without a friend in the mayor's office. Perhaps the news of that will take that ingratiating grin off of Nahai's face.

The Highway Patrolman's red lights were flashing as I stood outside my car just across the border into Arizona Thursday night waiting for him to write the ticket when I heard the "tweet" alert.

I reached for the cell phone in my pocket, slowly, and told him I was waiting for an important message. He stiffened but I went ahead and looked: "We won, Measure B Lost." It didn't mean a thing to him.

By the time I got to Phoenix, I realized this was a dream come true. David beat Goliath. The People beat the Machine. Business, labor and the community came together and showed Antonio Villaraigosa he's living in a political fantasy world believing he can get away with pandering to special interests and smiling his way out of the failure of his policies.

This wasn't an election about solar energy. We all want clean energy instead of the dirtiest power plants in America. We all want clean air instead of the dirtiest air in America.

It was an election about back room deals, about the DWP monopoly and whether it serves the public interest or private interests, about the IBEW and whether it has abused its power for the last time.

It was an election about the failure of City Hall and the demand of a broad coalition for open, inclusive and democratic processes on solar energy and billboards and budgets and everything else City Hall does.

The mayor and City Council can follow the lead of the IBEW's Brian D'Arcy and the DWP's David Nahai and ignore the will of the people. They can pay lip service and say they "heard" the people. Or they can change course and embrace the changes that are coming with -- or without -- them.

No, this wasn't an election about solar energy.

The majority of LA voters repudiated City Hall itself and the way it has worked for far too long.

This is a mandate for change. The mayor could seize the day. Anyone on the council could step forward. Dozens of prominent and important people could see the momentum and step forward.

I hope he does and they do. But my belief is the future hopes for a prosperous and liveable city will rest on somebody who comes out of a new generation of leadership, someone who isn't tied to the politics of the past, who puts the greater good of the city and its people ahead of the interests of the few.

The task at hand for all those who want to be part of something greater than themselves is to demand the kind of processes that bring us together instead of keeping us apart, to demand policies that serve the public interest, not the special interests, to elect the people who see themselves as public servants, not officials elected to high office who serve themselves.

For once, the City Planning Commission did the right thing -- nothing.

David Zahniser reports the commision met for four hours in the morning, took a break for lunch, and then resumed their meeting but still could reach a decision on a new billboard ordinance.

For good reason, the city has made such a mess of the situation, there isn't any way to fix without getting to the root of the problem: 4,000 illegal billboards, Jack Weiss' legislative bungling, incompetent legal representation of CIty Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and a know-nothing City Council that does what it's told without thinking.

Here's some free advice to the commission: Get a real lawyer for yourselves, don't listen to the mayor and the lobbyists and do what's right to make LA a liveable city.

I had no doubt that will mean putting aside all talk of future policy and vote to approve a lengthy moratorium on all billboards while the question of all the illegal billboards is resolved.

Clearly, the billboard mess shows no one in City Hall knows what they are doing or has the honor to do what's right and necessary.

By Bruno
L.A.'s Watchdog

I occasionally drink from the toilet bowl so I may be biased but how stupid - and arrogant - can our public servants get?  Consider this story today from our ever-shrinking Dog Trainer:

"Three years after Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said city departments should not spend taxpayer money on bottled water, several municipal agencies have increased their purchases of it, according to a report released Tuesday."

We're facing a  $1 billion deficit in LA and these knuckleheads are buying something that you can get for free from the city they work for? So it's not bottled. Can't they use a glass, or buy a canteen?

The Dog Trainer went on to say City Controller Laura Chick, who, by this time, most city employees hope drinks from a toilet bowl or drowns in one, found that 13 city departments spent more than $184,000 last year on bottled water.

Chick warned them in 2005 that she was watching this liquid waste and what did our city employees do? They bought even more!

"The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power provides us with some of the cleanest, healthiest and best tasting drinking water in the world," Chick barked in a statement. "There is no reason why the city should continue purchasing large quantities of bottled water."

I'd say there's no reason.  Chick's "report" was one of those infamous cheap hits from her that the media love - and city employees absolutely despise. (She's not the most popular watchdog in the City Hall kennel.) That being said, you'd think they'd be smart enough to stop walking into her traps.

(Memo to incoming City Controller Wendy Greuel: conduct the same study next year. I'll bet you a steak bone you'll see why Chick loved these in-depth studies.)

In 2008, the biggest purchase of bottled water was made by the city's Department of Public Works, which spent nearly $70,000.

Chick found. Los Angeles World Airports purchased more than $31,000 of bottled water, while the Los Angeles Police Department and the Department of General Services each spent nearly $20,000; significant increases over four years ago.

The mayor, presumably working day and night to figure out new hikes in fees, rates and taxes, didn't respond immediately.

Villaraigosa spokesman Matt Szabo said the mayor's office is still reviewing Chick's report.  Think he drinks tap water? Yeah, right.

Grrrrrrrrr.

IBEW union bosses Brian D'Arcy and Marvin Kropke spent a million dollars or more of their members' money to try to get voters to give them a monopoly on solar energy jobs in LA.

They had blocked the city from replacing the nation's dirtiest power supply with clean energy for a decade over this demand and they finally got their way with the help of environmental lobbyists and the city's politicians but only if the people voted for it.

That condition was made necessary because the monopoly on solar energy by the IBEW and the DWP would surely end in massive waste and fraud and no one, certainly not the politicians, wanted to take responsibility for that.

Well, the people have voted and likely will have voted against this scheme when the final tally of the March 3 primary comes out Thursday, or at least split down the middle.

But everybody wants solar energy so the business, labor and community coalition that fought against Measure B offered to sit down and work together with everyone involved to come up with a plan that gives LA the most solar energy at the best price in the shortest time.

Here's how the union bosses D'Arcy and Kropke responded in their usual bully-boy manner replete with false and misleading statements intended to keep the environmentalists and the politicians in line:

"After two years of study and discussion with environmental, business, community, energy, solar and community leaders and assembling a coalition representing more than 1 million Angelenos, we took the unprecedented step of putting Measure B on the ballot so ratepayers could have their say on implementing the largest solar plan in the nation. We took policy making out of the backroom and into the open with a transparent, citywide election. 

 "Those who led the fight to oppose Measure B succeeded in directing attention on inside-baseball process issues and away from the merits of Measure B, causing a close and protracted election.  On March 24th we will receive the results of this election from the Los Angeles City Clerk's office. In the meantime, our opponents have written a letter to Mayor Villaraigosa and editorials in our local newspapers advocating for a solar plan of their own. Regardless of their real agenda and the ultimate outcome of the vote tally, our coalition is committed to fighting any attempts to further stall swift action towards green energy and job creation and to ensuring  that the LADWP proceeds with a renewable energy plan that adheres to our core principles:

 1)      In-basin, solar photovoltaic power generation that generates power when it is needed most and  alleviates further strain on our overstrained power grid

 2)      Solar power generation that is owned, operated and maintained by the LADWP ensuring LADWP customers the best service, reliability and rates in Southern California

 3)      A program that creates family-supporting jobs, attracts new solar businesses to Los Angeles by establishing a stable and strong new market for their product, and the establishment of a job outreach program that targets our underserved and unemployed."

U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins: "The court can only hope that the city's future conduct, both in practice, and in drafting legislation, reflects a principled approached to a serious issue that raises concerns not only as to the landscape of the city, but also as to the safety of its citizens."

That's what Judge Collins said in holding the city in contempt of court for its repeated bungling of efforts to control the spread of supergraphic signs stretching across large buildings and creating visual blight.

In issuing a tentative ruling, Collins stuck by the decision she made last August when she ruled the city's effort to impose a total ban on supergraphics -- except when it approves them or allows them in "special" areas like Hollywood -- was unconstitutional.

That ruling opened the way to sign companies putting up dozens of supergraphics wherever they wanted. The city's response since has done nothing to fix the problem.

"To the court's extreme displeasure, the city has not acted appropriately in response to this court's orders and the proliferation of signs in Los Angeles," Collins wrote,

Critics argue the new billboard ordinance going before the Planning Commission will only perpetuate the problem.

Dennis Hathaway, president of the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight, told the Times all special signage districts, including those in Hollywood and near Staples Center, should be eliminated to make the law enforceable.

The City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed new billboard ordinance at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday in the City Council Chamber.

This measure is as flawed as the 2002 ordinance written by wannabe City Attorney Jack Weiss, who helped broker the deal for 900 digital billboards two years ago and has his sticky fingers in the latest incarnation of selling out the public interest to these sign companies that are profiteering at the public expense.

Visit Dennis Hathaway's Ban Billboard Blight website if you want insight into what's wrong with this proposal that is being rushed through City Hall with proper public input. Or read former Planning Commission President Jane Usher's cogent insights in the item below.

Editor's Note: Former LA City Planning Commission President Jane Usher has submitted a written statement (Usher-billboards1.rtf) in advance of Wednesday morning's public hearing on a proposed new sign ordinance for the city. She also released this oral statement she will make.
By Jane Usher
 
Good morning Commissioners. My name is Jane Usher. I submitted a detailed written statement to you earlier. Copies are available in the back of the room.

We are here today because the city of Los Angeles is suffering from a disease called sign proliferation. Let's get this much straight. Our disease is not due to the silence of our laws. Since 2002, our city's regulations have prohibited new billboards and alterations to existing billboards. This means that our current law bans all digital billboards. Our current laws also explicitly prohibit supergraphics. And yet, the city is awash in sign proliferation of these very types.

So what is causing our disease? Two unfortunate things: our zany exceptions to our own rules and our failure to enact behavior-influencing enforcement tools. Our current code allows the City to create billboard districts but provides no guidelines for judging these requests. This free-for-all was exacerbated in 2006 when the City Council granted the greatest exception imaginable: it authorized 840 digital billboards, to be installed at locations chosen by the sign companies. Our exceptions have led to dozens of lawsuits that challenge our basic billboard ban on the grounds that it has been unfairly applied. And, two, our code does not contain penalties or programs that would inspire sign companies to obey our rules.

We need a cure. But the ordinance before you today is not what the doctor ordered. It is, in truth, a distraction. It offers up an unnecessary, complicated new rubric that will invite another decade of litigation. It is light years behind New York City on the subject of penalties and enforcement protocols. And it is similarly weak when it comes to laying down unequivocal and sensible standards for granting exceptions. In fact, the proposal advances this aspect of our disease by recommending that you allow seven proposed billboard districts to march forward, still with no guidelines for judging them.

Planning Commissioners, you are in desperate need of a second medical opinion. One that focuses on the things that are actually making us sick. It is time for the political quacks who have brought us to this unfortunate day to step aside and let real doctors, real planners, in.
 

I wasn't much of a soldier and I didn't wind up anywhere near a combat zone but I did serve two years in the United States Army during the Vietnam War and I deserve some respect.

Not in the same league to be sure as those who actually put their lives on the line in that or any of our other wars and bear the scars of that experience physically or emotionally.

But in a country that sends its men and women off to war as often we do it's about time we all showed them the respect they deserve and showered them with honors.

It's taken me a long time to fully come to this realization. Maybe it's my personal disgust at American militarism. Maybe it's my sense of shame at not having done more to stop all these wars or fight in them.

It doesn't matter. The way we treat veterans makes me ashamed, ought to make us all wake up to our debt to those who serve in the military.

We give too many of them rotten care or none at all. Too many of them are among the homeless living on the streets. We're scrimping on their benefits and stealing the land where their medical facilities are supposed to be. We treat them like lepers instead of heroes.

I don't read much about it in the media but I keep getting emails about what's going on right here in LA at the Westwood and Sepulveda Veterans Administration where land and facilities are being taken over for all kinds of general public benefits like parkland and homeless housing but nothing is being done to improve the lot of the men and women who honorably served the country and are in need.

Perhaps it's time we all learned more about what's going on and join in the "Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day" barbecue from 10 a.m. at North Hollywood Park

Here's an open letter to President Obama from Peggy Burgess who sent versions of it to many other local, state and federal officials:

Urgent! Your help needed to save the Sepulveda VA Hospital and Medical Center in North Hills, CA

 

Dear Mr. President:

 

I am writing to you because the over 150,000 Veterans currently served by the Sepulveda VA, the thousands who will be returning home to the San Fernando Valley and this community desperately need your help to save this urgently needed medical center.

 

On February 24 and again on February 27, you promised the nation and the armed forces that you would give them the expanded health care they have earned and called for VA facilities to be increased and upgraded with state of the art diagnostic equipment for our returning vets.  You promised that "veterans would be taken care of, that additional facilities would be built across the Nation to provide for them and that our debt to them will never end."

 

Well, Mr. President, exactly the opposite is and has been happening at the Sepulveda VA.  Until about 1996, this was a vibrant, full-service hospital and medical center.  Since 1996, however, it has been systematically downsized, downgraded, urgently needed medical buildings demolished or gutted for use as film and TV studios and other non-veteran related uses.  Now the Dept. of Veterans Affairs and its Asset Management Unit have leased two more urgently needed medical buildings and 7.05 acres of largely undeveloped federal land to a private sector developer, A Community of Friends, and New Directions, operator of an inpatient-substance and alcohol abuse facility at the VA Westwood in West Los Angeles (WLA).  The project will convert these two medical buildings into a 149 unit efficiency-apartment complex that will not, and cannot, even be exclusively for veterans.  A Zoning Variance is required from the City of Los Angeles in order for the project to go forward.  If the Variance is approved, it will open up not only the lessees'  7.05 acre parcel but the entire 160 acres of the Sepulveda VA to further development of all kinds and the veterans will lose their medical center and their land forever!

 

The proposed use is opposed by the Veterans, the community, the residents of the entire San Fernando Valley, three neighborhood councils, many veterans organizations, The San Fernando Valley Historical Society and local law enforcement.

 

Please Mr. President step in and stop this criminal misuse of an urgently needed medical center and veterans land.  The two buildings in question are in good condition and can easily, and fairly inexpensively, be refurbished and staffed for the care and treatment of thousands of returning veterans.  Tell the DVA that you want this facility restored as a full-service medical center immediately, as per my enclosed letter to General Shinseki.  This land and the Sepulveda VA belongs to the Veterans, it was bought and paid for with their blood and no one has the right to lease, sell or give it away without their approval and they do not approve the proposed use.

 

We are all depending on you and looking forward to early action and a reply.

 

Sincerely,

 

Peggy Randall Burgess

With the failure of Measure B, it seems everyone in City Hall -- except the mayor himself -- agrees we need open and transparent processes and full community participation.

We'll soon see how that works when the public conversation begins over how to get the most clean energy at the best price in the shortest time and looming billion dollar budget deficits and the billboard fiasco.

Next Wednesday at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chamber, the City Planning Commission will take up the latest attempt to quell the latest rebellion by the restless natives without actually doing anything that would deny the billboard companies their staggering profits selling sex and hyper-consumerism.

Dennis Hathaway, the expert on this issue, will post his expert analysis over the weekend at the Ban Billboard Blight website.

City planners released their proposal this week and it is very complicated with tradeoffs that  suggest great sensitivity to the interests of the billboard companies and their lobbyists.

For instance, the public's right to sue over plans for billboards until all administrative processes, including appeals, is taken away and fees for billboards, a pittance at $168, won't change.

Penalties for illegal billboards that are put up would rise dramatically but it's hard to put much trust in a system that has such a hard time collecting what it's owed that it is proposing to contract with bill collectors to collect fines from mammoth companies with their batteries of lawyers.

The chart below from Page 11 of the Planning Department report shows in green how the size of signs allowed under the proposed LA ordinance compares to New York, Chicago and Boston (the purple column). Boston is in the process of toughening its lax ordinance while LA would allow signs as much as five times larger than New York and Chicago.

It's going to take time to really understand the implications of this proposal especially since City Hall's track record on billboards like most issues is dismal.

Remember it was wannabe City Attorney Jack Weiss who wrote the flawed billboard ordinance seven years ago that his colleagues on the City Council approved without knowing what they were doing.

It was Weiss, the self-styled expert, who participated in selling out the public interest in the deal that allowed 900 digital billboards to go up after the city won the case in court. Once again, council members didn't know what they were approving, or so they said.

We can't afford to blow it again so I'd suggest calling for an extension of the moratorium while Neighborhood Councils review the proposal and have the chance to organize into an effective force to fight for changes that will actually work.
 

Meet the new Wendy Greuel, landslide winner of the race to succeed flamethrowing City Controller Laura Chick thanks in no small part to $250,000 in influence-buying money from the IBEW..

In an email blast, Greuel thanks her supporters and says she learned a lot from voters, presumably meaning their rejection of Measure B and the ineffectual Jack Weiss and the less than overwhelming numbers rung up by the mayor.

"In this election, the people of Los Angeles spoke, and they spoke clearly.  They want a safer and healthier Los Angeles, they want more job opportunities and they want a brighter future for our children. 

"But Angelenos also said something else.  They said they want our City to be more responsive, they want our City to be more efficient, and they want our City government to act on behalf of the people, and not the special interests.  

"I am here to tell you that I hear that call, I hear those needs, and with your help we can change Los Angeles.  

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is one person's report on how Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa handled himself on the LA Chamber's junket to the nation's capital to plead for money for the city. There may be other points of view but I doubt it.

By Fellow Traveler

I am at the airport leaving DC from this week's LA/Southern California trip.  The trip was very enjoyable and productive from my point of view.  It was my first time with such a large delegation.

Many of the Capitol Hill people and fellow trip attendees chuckled about Measure B's defeat.

The funny part was how Mayor Villaraigosa thought he was the big leader for the delegation but wound up looking like a narcissistic jerk. 

Most of the other elected officials from LA and the rest of the region were all very gracious and acted like part of the team lobbying for all of Southen California while the Mayor
hogged the stage all the time with the ME show. 

A lot of the 200+ people were laughing AT him for how cluelessly self-absorbed he is and
I do not even think he noticed!

I voted for him in 2005 but will never vote for him again.

Measure B and his grandstanding without results worries me.  His behavior is even worse.  It is a no-win choice.  He either runs for Governor and we risk him being the "leader" of the state or he stays in LA and continues on his current path

Here's NBC Los Angeles' report about what the mayor -- accompanied by ambitious City Council members Eric Garcetti, Wendy Greuel, Janice Hahn, Ed Reyes and Jose Huizar -- had to say in Washington:

"There has never been a more critical time for Southern California's leaders to set aside our differences and come together to revitalize and revamp our region's economy.

"Los Angeles and its neighbors will play a crucial role in our nation's economic recovery, and we have traveled to Washington to call on congressional leaders to give us our fair share of federal dollars and help us get our economy back on track.

"At this time of unprecedented challenges for every citizen, it is our responsibility to lay the foundation for our long-term prosperity and take action today that produces success tomorrow.

"Now more than ever, we must uphold our promise to make the American dream a reality for anyone willing to work for it, and we must do everything in our power to stand by our workers and establish the building blocks of progress for the future."

Responding to a letter from the LA Chamber, Carpenters Union and the VoteNoMeasureB campaign, several city officials say they have heard the message: Open and inclusive process to develop a renewable energy plan that serves everyone and achieves success.

The mayor and his frontman at the DWP, David Nahai, keep talking like Marie Antoinette and saying they are going ahead with their unplanned, unstudied, unthinkable solar energy program rejected by half the city's voters.

But that's not what Council President Eric Garcetti is saying and it's not what Councilman Jan Perry, head of the energy committee, or Councilman Richard Alarcon or DWP Commission President Lee Alpert are saying.

Here's what they told Rick Orlov in the Daily News on Tuesday:

Perry: "Pass or fail, I think we should go ahead with a process to have the DWP present its proposal to the committee, and we hold hearings in a north, south, east, west fashion. I don't think it matters if it was approved. This is a process we should go through anyway. We will be very inclusive and open and deliberative and put things on the record."

Alarcon, who serves on the energy committee: The election results show it's clear the voters want an open process. It also sent a message to the City Council and the mayor that we have some work to do.If we are going to drive this industry and make it profitable, we have to have everybody on board with what we're doing to develop long-term support of the public."

Alpert:"We need to have all the customers and stakeholders involved and educated as to what we're doing."

With Interim City Clerk Karen Kalfayan expected to complete the tally of 46,000 uncounted votes this week, the "No" campaign leads by 1,322 votes. Statistically, that margin is expected to hold up or even increase when the tally is complete.

The letter to the mayor and CIty Council on Tuesday offered to work cooperatively to move quickly to bring together all stakeholders to develop a solar energy plan that will actually create "clean energy and good jobs" -- and not just a monopoly for the DWP and its union, the IBEW.

The letter was signed by Gary Toebben, President & CEO of the LA Area Chamber of Commerce, William Luddy, Legislative and Political Director of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, and me as a spokesman for the No on Measure B campaign and a founder of the Saving LA Project. Here's the full text:

"The voters of Los Angeles have given the Mayor, City Council, DWP, business, labor, environmentalists, neighborhood councils and ratepayers the time to craft a solar plan that will work for all of us, not just some of us. 

 

"The opposition to Measure B was not about whether to embrace the use of solar energy; it was about crafting and implementing a plan that works for everyone.  It was clear from the results of last Tuesday's election that regardless of the final vote count, the voters and ratepayers of Los Angeles want more transparency and inclusion before a decision of such significance for the future of our community is made. 

 

"We stand ready to begin working with you immediately.  The use of solar energy is an important opportunity for our community and with all of us working together; we can lay a foundation that is beneficial for everyone." 

 

 

Decline and fall of America's news media has opened up all kinds of possibities of new ownership and new ideas and revived LA billionaire/philanthropist Eli Broad's interest in saving the LA Times from further deterioration.

Here's a Reuters story that moved today:

By Lilla Zuill

NEW YORK, March 10 (Reuters) - Eli Broad, a wealthy philanthropist who once looked at buying the Los Angeles Times, is still interested in a foray into the newspaper business, he told a gathering in New York on Monday night.

"We can't afford to lose good newspaper journalism, investigative reporting," the 75-year old retired business maven said during a lecture on business in philanthropy at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan.

The Times, which is owned by the Tribune Co, has like most U.S. newspapers been struggling with a steep drop in advertising revenue brought on by U.S. economic woes and a migration of readers to the Internet.

Real estate magnate Sam Zell took Tribune private in an $8.2 billion deal in 2007 that loaded up the company with billions in debt. The company filed for bankruptcy protection last year.

The L.A. Times is expected to eventually be put up for sale again.

Broad, jokingly, said: "I've regained my sanity since then," referring to his earlier interest. But turning more serious, he added: "I would like to see our foundation and others join together to own the LA Times."

Even then, budget constraints would likely be at play. "I am not sure it can be a national paper, or have the same aspirations it once had," said Broad. He added that one way to broaden reach could be tie-up with The Washington Post Co (WPO.N).

Broad, who made his fortune by founding homebuilder KB Home (KBH.N) then building SunAmerica, a provider of retirement products, into a Fortune 500 company that he sold to AIG in 1999 for $18 billion, conceded newspapers, as a business proposition, is weak.

"No one has figured out a good business model as of yet," he said.

Cutting out profit expectations could be one answer, he added: "Newspapers ought to be owned by foundations, not look for great financial returns."

Broad pointed to UK newspaper the Guardian as one example. That paper is owned by the Scott Trust Limited, which was created in 1936 to protect the legacy of longstanding editor and former owner of the Guardian, C.P. Scott.

"If several foundations are involved there is likely to be journalistic freedom," said Broad.

The coalition that fought Measure B to a stalemate -- residents, business and labor -- is the coalition that can change LA.

I know it's an alien concept, this old-fashioned idea of democracy, and has never taken hold in the entire history of LA.

But it's an idea whose time has come. There is no other way. Runaway spending that created a billion dollar budget deficit, billboard blight, a real solar energy plan instead of Measure B and all the B.S at City Hall are just a few of the issues that must be faced immediately.

The quality of life in our city has declined and our problems have only gotten worse during a generation that began with hope with the election of Tom Bradley as mayor and the collapse of the right-wing oligarchy known as the Committee of 25.

Almost overnight, LA went from a conservative, anti-union town to a liberal, union-dominated town. Subway and rail lines got built and downtown got rebuilt but something went wrong along the way as the cost of city government soared out of control and the quality of services declined.

What we got is what I've ironically called a failed experiment in municipal socialism. Development without planning led to worse traffic congestion, poverty soared, neighborhoods deteriorated, gangs took control of vast sections of the city, the school system failed.

Richard Riordan rode a groundswell of discontent into the mayor's office and brought together a new elite, a new establishment that promised to "turn LA around" by hiring more police, fixing the schools, creating good jobs.

But the civic culture that coalesced around Riordan was no match for the political forces that had gained so much power, for the demographic changes that were taking place. He turned LA around but could not really get it moving forward and so the discontent of the people once again surfaced.

Efforts at reforming the City Charter were largely taken over by public employee unions, resulting in a mashup of powerless Neighborhood Councils and blurred lines of authority between the mayor and City Council.

That's when the San Fernando Valley rebelled and sought to secede and form its own city -- the nation's sixth largest, safest, richest and most integrated. It never stood a chance.

A new power structure had evolved, the Committee of 225, as I've sarcastically called it. The elite civic culture was weak, communities divided by race and class, Fortune 500 companies and major banks were gone. Power came to be held by lobbyists, consultants and influence peddlers who fed the political system with campaign cash and fed off it with contracts and  sweetheart deals.

"Pay-to-play" flourished under the lackluster leadership of Mayor James Hahn and has become rationalized into a political machine under the leadership of the politically-ambitious Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

And so we are now at the turning point in the history of LA. We have become an old city with an aging infrastructure. We lack the political will to make the hard decisions needed to revive our economy, fix our schools, solve our problems.

That's why what happened in the campaign against Measure B is so important. It was a symbol of everything wrong with our city government: Back room deals, lack of honesty and transparency, profiteering by narrow special interests without regard to the public interest.

Everyone wants clean energy in a city with the nation's dirtiest air and dirtiest power plants but residents, business and labor came together and stood up to the machine and stopped what was nothing more than a blank check for graft and corruption.

We must build on that foundation. We must rebuild our civic culture. There can be no excuses for sitting on the sidelines any longer.

There's a lot of work to be done. At the grassroots level, Neighborhood Councils need to talk less and act more to bring together residents and business, service clubs and churches and then join nearby NCs to form coalitions that can put real pressure on Council members.

Civic, business and labor leaders need to stop accepting crumbs from the table of power and stand up for what's right for the city.

And Council members need to stop going along to get along and find the courage to speak the truth and refuse to approve anything they doesn't serve the people's interest.

Nothing but the greed of petty little people holds this machine together. It will crumble in the face of a broad-based and inclusive movement that gave everyone a seat at the table of power.

Only then will we able to find the common ground and begin to solve our problems and make LA the great city it could become.  
 

The extraordinary success of the No on Measure B -- from its origins among community activists to a coalition that included business, labor and political parties of every type -- has laid the groundwork for a mass movement that can take back LA from the special interests.

Contrary to what many expected, the total vote last Tuesday was nearly 18 percent of registered voters when as few as 10 percent was expected and the mayor's minions boasted they would win if the total reached 15 percent. The "No" side leads by 1,322 votes with the remaining 46,000 absentee, provisional and damaged votes to be tallied later this week.

For the Saving LA Project, Neighborhood Councils and homeowner/resident groups, fighting the City Hall political machine to a stalemate on an issue like solar energy was a tremendous victory.

Whatever the final tally, there is no mandate for a DWP/IBEW monopoly on solar energy or for the mayor and City Council's seizing direct control of the contracting process in order to shake down everyone who wants a piece of the billions of dollars involved in the massive program.

So how did community activists -- dismissed as "fringe activists" by the "Yes" campaign -- stop the machine?

It starts with a decade of failure of the DWP to deliver on its many promises to bring solar energy to the city and the IBEW's total resistance during that time to renewable energy because you don't need the state's (if not the nation's) highest paid utility workers to run windmills or rooftop solar installations.

Faced with the inevitable need for clean energy, the IBEW, in league with environmental political action committees willing to pay any price to move forward, came up with Measure B.

The mayor, who never has been able to say no to the IBEW or its generous campaign money, got aboard in hopes of enhancing his political ambitions.

Business, labor and the solar energy industry then were confronted with a campaign of intimidation that kept them quiet. Similar tactics brought the timid City Council into unanimous obedience without its members even having a clue about what they were voting on after a three-week legislative process that made a mockery of the democratic process and the notion that our Council members actually represent the citizens of Los Angeles.

Outcries from community activists almost certainly would have gone nowhere if the City Hall political machine weren't so arrogant and contemptuous of the public that it kept critical information secret and then went to court to crush all opposition.

Not satisfied with having all the advantages, the machine ordered top environment greenwasher Mitchell Schwartz, a lobbyist and head of a PAC that calls itself the LA League of Conservation Voters, to sue the authors of the ballot argument against Measure B, accusing them of false and misleading statements.

Judge David Yaffe took the side of the Solar 8 and laughed the real liars out of court, dismissing the arguments put forward by the machine's mouthpiece, attorney Stephen Kaufman.

From that moment on, the community was energized and came together as never before, came together in a way that someday will be seen as the historic turning point when the machine started to fall apart and the people started to take back City Hall.

Literally hundreds of people got involved, a word-of-mouth campaign began to form using the revolutionary tools of the Internet: Email, Facebook, Twitter.

After hearing arguments from both sides and DWP's thinly-veiled presentations of a massive solar energy program that was slapped together without any planning or analysis, dozens of Neighborhood Councils and homeowner/resident groups joined the campaign against Measure B.

Business groups like the apartment owners association, VICA, United Chambers followed suit. And with help from Paul Hefner of Polka Consulting in Sacramento, the campaign became more focused and effective until it became obvious that Measure B could be defeated.

The media pounded away at the flaws in Measure B, exposing one lie and deceit after another and questioning it in editorials. Three council members defected from the Yes campaign.

With the groundswell building, Bill Luddy brought the Carpenters Union into the battle with mass mailings and professional phone banks. Members of the Laborers Union got involved and the LA Chamber joined in. The Times and Daily News came out in full opposition.

In the end, the "Yes" campaign, with the full advantage of the political machine's power, outspent the "No" campaign 25 to 1. The mayor was damaged by managing to win re-election with only 55 percent of the vote. Jack Weiss was humiliated when 64 percent of the voters turned against him.A long-time Neighbhorhood Council and homeowner activist, David Vahedi, made the runoff to succeed Weiss in CD5.

The political dynamic of LA was changed by results of Tuesday's elections. The question now is what must be done to build on this success.

Monday: Changing LA Part Two: Opportunity and Challenge -- Billboards, Budget and B.S.

On the day before Tuesday's primary, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Chief Bill Bratton got publicity all over the news media with their boasts that the LAPD had reached a record number of police officers - just 105 short of the less than magic 10,000 number and 244 less than we were promised when trash fees were tripled.

It took until Thursday before anyone bothered to ask Bratton how many more officers were actually on the streets protecting us. None, he had to admit, because most of the added officers were filling desk jobs since the LAPD has more than 500 fewer civilians on the payroll.

Of course, it was nothing but one in a long line of political stunts intended to deceive the public and hide the failure of Villaraigosa to deliver on his mountain of empty promises.

Political stunts like that are symptomatic of much more serious abuses that are going on.

Villaraigosa is systematically politicizing every aspect of city government.

That's what political machines do to squelch all opposition, to corrupt public policy for their own advantage. It's the kind of corruption that leads to graft and bribery and demoralization of the vast majority of honest city employees.

Numerous top city officials and commissioners have told me in recent weeks how every decision they make is being vetted by the mayor's vast staff and political team and twisted for the benefit of the mayor regardless of the consequences to the quality of life of the people who live, work and do business in the city.

They understand that their positions are on the line if they cross the mayor, if the push too hard for what they believe is right.

It's why people of integrity and courage like Jane Usher and Nick Patsaouras quit as commission presidents rather than participate in corruption.

It's why it's so dangerous that Wendy Greuel was elected City Controller when she has displayed no courage to stand up to the mayor.

It's why Jack Weiss who is the mayor's well-trained lapdog, must be defeated in the runoff for City Attorney against Carmen "Nuch" Trutanich.

It's why the political advertising that Bratton did for Villaraigosa and Weiss, his endorsements of Greuel, Council President Eric Garcetti and Measure B and Measure E undermine the integrity of city government and compromise everyone involved.

It's why the ordinary people rallied to fight Measure B and the city's civic elite is ready to join the Pitchforks and Torches Movement.

The future of this city is at stake.

I'm not exaggerating. We are at the precipice, the point of no return.

Other than Laura Chick, who is reviled at City Hall for her courage, not one single city official has shown the strength of character to stand up to the machine.

City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo has become invisible and the City Council does what it is told - unanimously.

Intimidation has become standard practice. You will be punished if you get in the way, rewarded if you go along with what you know is wrong.

Business, labor and the council were all threatened that they would suffer if the came out against Measure B. Yet, some did in the end like the LA Chamber and the Carpenter's Union and Councilman Smith, Zine and Parks when it was clear Measure B might lose.

We are at the turning point. We have shown by fighting Measure B to a draw that the machine can be beaten. It will break down in the face of public resistance. We have shown just how weak it is when all their millions and all their power cannot triumph.

There is strength in numbers. The ordinary people in Neighborhood Councils and homeowner groups showed the way. Now, it is the duty of the city's civic leadership to rise up and take a stand with the people.

Unemployment in the city is over 10 percent officially and far higher in reality. The poverty rate is soaring as middle class jobs disappear.

We have been taxed to death with fees and rates soaring and more coming and yet we face cataclysmic cuts in public services with a budget deficit approaching $700 million in the coming fiscal year and far higher in following years.

Antonio's machine is broken and weak. It will fall apart of city commissioners stand up to it, if the business and labor leaders refuse to look the other way any longer, if elected officials fulfill their oaths of office.

The people are aroused and have gotten organized. We are beyond being mad as hell. We are doing something about it and we are going to do a lot more in the days and weeks ahead.

There will be no backroom deal on solar energy. The mayor, in his arrogant contempt for the will of the people, will not get away with his boast that he'll go forward with the DWP/IBEW monopoly on solar energy.

We can move forward quickly with a real plan but it must be done in the open with all stakeholders at the table.

We can get our arms around the budget deficit but city employee unions must face the reality that everyone in the private sector is facing. That means doing more with less, redoing contracts to a level of cost we can afford so that we maintain vital services while eliminating those that are unnecessary in hard times.

Stop the machine. Join the movement to save LA.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Here's links to what the LA Times, Daily News and LA Weekly had to say today about the election.

The turnout for Tuesday's election actually exceeded all expectations and the final tally might not be known for as much as three weeks with 46,000 ballots still uncounted but one fact is painfully clear: A great divide exists in our city.

My pal Jack Humphreville has looked at the numbers (Here's a spreadsheet for wonks primarynumbers) and found the mayor actually would have been forced into a runoff if voters in the five richest and whitest City Council districts had their way.

The mayor got less than half the vote in the districts of Greig Smith (36 %), Dennis Zine (43%), Wendy Greuel (44%) and Bill Rosendahl (48%) and 51% in Jack Weiss' district.

The trend was even more dramatic when it comes to Measure B which was overwhelmingly rejected in the same five council districts: Smith (68%), Zine (62%), Weiss (60%), Greuel (59%) and Rosendahl (58%). 
 
The numbers are telling. We are a city divided against itself, a city where 85% percent of the people abdicate their civic responsibilities entirely and where those who care enough to vote are divided by race, class and geography.

The result makes for easy pickings for a political system that has failed to produce a single leader willing and able to rise above their sense of service to self and special interests.

They live off of our differences and exploit them to advantage themselves and those who provide their campaign money and keep them in office with $180,000 salaries, lucrative benefits and perks.

And so year by year, LA becomes like the aging industrial cities back east, eaten away by the loss of good jobs and rising poverty and deteriorating neighborhoods.

I woke up at 4 a.m. after four hours of sleep and couldn't believe my eyes when I refreshed the election results and saw to my amazement that Measure B had lost.

Three months ago we knew it would take a miracle to defeat what was nothing but a scam for City Hall to get its hands on billions of dollars of our money in the name of something everyone wants, has wanted for years, solar energy.

Well, we got our miracle. Measure B lost.

I know it's just 1,322 votes and there's still thousands of absentees and provisionals to be counted  A 50-50 split in the vote is not a mandate to perpetuate the DWP/IBEW monopoly that has failed us.

It never should have come to this. Measure B was a loser when the City Council put it on the ballot back on Nov. 7 without having a clue about what they were doing except that they were told to vote for it unanimously or else. We didn't need a ballot measure to do it. We just needed, need, the political will.

The election results are a repudiation of City Hall's failure, proof positive that the people are waking up and demanding full participation, complete transparency and honesty, an end to machine politics that tramples on their interests and destroys their quality of lives.

They argued throughout the campaign that we waited 10 years for solar energy and we can't wait any longer. I agree.

That's why we'll be at City Hall this morning at 9:30 a.m. to talk about what we've been saying every day for months.

Let's all come together -- Neighborhood Councils and other community groups, environmentalists, the solar industry, the unions, the business community, the DWP and the experts -- and go to work figuring out how we really get solar energy now, how we really get thousands of new jobs, attract the solar industry to set up shop here, how we get the most clean energy for our money.

That's what we all want, have wanted. The question is whether the mayor who got just 55 percent of the vote has learned anything, whether he's prepared to start respecting the people of the city and providing the leadership they want instead of pandering to special interests and putting his politics ahead of public policy.

What if Zev or Rick or Laura had found the courage to take on Antonio?

 

I wonder if any of them or any of the other potential mayoral candidates with name recognition and access to money has given a second thought to what might have happened if they had challenged the supposedly unbeatable Antonio.

 

Unplanted trees, unfilled potholes, unfulfilled promises, soaring rates, fees and taxes, politics over policy, personality without progress, 1.000 digital billboards, over-development without planning, worsening traffic congestion and the fatal blow: A $1 billion and rising budget deficit that will lead to even higher rates, fees and taxes and fewer services.

 

If my friends Zuma Dogg and David Hernandez and company can get 40 percent of the vote against the unbeatable Antonio, a candidate with substantial backing surely could have forced a runoff against mayor who doesn't want the job, who sees it as a stepping stone to high office in Sacramento or Washington.

 

But we don't have to cry over missed opportunities.

 

Defeating Measure B will change the whole City Hall political dynamic. It will let the timid members of the City Council know that the people who live, work and do business in LA have come together into a political force to be reckoned with.

 

And that is truly what has happened. Community groups of every type, political organizations, labor unions and business groups have formed a coalition of the underserved and sent City Hall a message that change is coming, that our officials will be held accountable for their actions.

 

We will come out of this election and demand transparency, full public participation, the public interest over special interest, policies that enhance our quality of life instead of destroying it.

 

That's why we must stop Jack Weiss from winning the City Attorney's race and elect Nick Patsaouras over Wendy Greuel in the Controller's race.

 

We can't afford people in these important watchdog offices whose record in public office shows they have gone along in order to get along, serving themselves at the expense of the people.

 

Turnout will be as low as 10 percent of registered voters so every vote truly will matter.

 

It's up to you to save LA. Get out and vote.

"You say, 'We cut a deal with them.' Yeah, we did. We built a partnership with them...they didn't see any jobs."  -- Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in an interview with the LA Business Journal published Monday March 2, 2009.

That's what Charles Crumpley, the editor of the Business Journal, reports under the headline  *Mayor and Business a Poor Union.*

It's astonishing admission from the mayor, especially as it comes on the eve of an election when voters are being asked to write a blank check to the Department of Water and Power which has failed to deliver solar energy to the city despite the total failure of its three major solar initiatives over the last decade.

The reason for the failures: Its union, IBEW Local 18 under the leadership of Brian D'Arcy, sabotaged every effort to bring solar energy to the city because you don't need highly-paid DWP workers to install or maintain rooftop panels like you do the coal-burning power plants we depend on today more than any other city in the nation.

So instead of a well-planned solar energy program, the mayor and City Council give us Measure B that grants a monopoly on solar ownership, installation and maintenance to the DWP and creates jobs for IBEW workers.

It was written by D'Arcy who is spending his union's money freely to sell the charter amendment and elect Wendy Greuel as City Controller -- the official who is mandated to protect the billions of dollars in public money from being ripped off and squandered as ratepayers' money was previously when the DWP launched its solar programs 

As Crumpley reports the interview with the mayor:

"Villaraigosa did little at our meeting to dissuade the notion that he's in bed with labor unions. 
 
"He basically confirmed suspicions that Measure B, the issue on the ballot Tuesday to boost solar power in Los Angeles, was written to intentionally benefit the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union. 
 
"You say, 'We cut a deal with them.' Yeah, we did. We built a partnership with them," the mayor said. 
 
"His rationale: The politically powerful IBEW was against past solar power initiatives because "they didn't see any jobs." So Measure B was written to gain the union's help rather than its enmity."

Solar at any price -- that's the only argument that has been put forth by the environmental lobbyists, the DWP, and the City Hall machine.

The mayor's comments show the real reason:

We have to pay off D"Arcy's union so he will let us start using clean energy no matter what it costs us, no matter how long it takes.

This kind of appeasement of a union boss who has never cared about anything except his own self interest is the heart of what Measure B is about.

It's got nothing to do with clean energy. It's got nothing to do with clean air or closing our filthy coal-burning power plants. It's got nothing to do with good jobs.

It's just blackmail.

But we've exposed that and no matter what happens at the ballot box on Tuesday we're not letting go or giving up.

If we win,. we will offer to meet environmentalists, the solar energy industry, the unions including the IBEW, the DWP and all the various interests who have a stake in the outcome and work to develop a real plan for clean energy and good jobs.

If we lose, we will demand the same summit meeting.

There is only one goal: Clean energy and good jobs at the lowest cost in the fastest time.

That's what they don't understand. We really want that for the benefit of the city, not for the benefit of narrow special interests. 

Editor's Note: DWP Commissioner Jonathan Palfrey, director of Green L.A. Coalition and vice president of the LA League of Conservation Voters, and I debated Measure B today on KPFK 90.7 FM on "Uprising" with Sonali Kolhatkar. Listen here.

By ANONYMOUS

Know Jack Weiss.

NO Jack Weiss.

 

Installment #1:

Our City Attorney Matters  

 

THE CITY ATTORNEY IS OUR LEGAL WATCHDOG 

Perhaps you are counting on our City Attorney to protect us from hard core criminals. And to be our go-to-guy against gangs. You should know that the District Attorney, not the City Attorney, prosecutes felons. Ideally, our next City Attorney will be a master of the criminal law system and an aggressive partner to our District Attorney, but crime is only one of the responsibilities of the City Attorney. The City Attorney defends us in the hundreds of civil lawsuits filed against the City. And, every day, the 500 City Attorneys instruct our Mayor, City Council, Police Chief, and City Departments on their legal obligations to the public. The City Attorney is all that stands between us and a rogue City Hall that trades in political backslapping instead of what's right.   

 

THE CITY ATTORNEY DECIDES WHICH LAWS TO ENFORCE

And then there's that other major responsibility. The City Attorney decides which of our laws to enforce. Did you ever wonder why that illegal building is still standing? Or why that sea of fresh billboards is in place? Or why the "club" down the street or that shuttered facility is home to activity at all hours of the day and night? The list goes on and on. You know the volume of unlawful, disruptive activity in YOUR neighborhood. Our City Attorney is tasked with enforcing our laws. Wouldn't it be refreshing to have our laws enforced?  All it takes is a City Attorney whose eye is on serving us, the public. All it takes is for US to elect a new breed of City Attorney. More to come...

                                                

Do NOT vote for Jack Weiss for City Attorney on March 3

Installment #2 of 7:

The Subject was Rape 

 

RAPE VICTIMS COUNTED ON JACK WEISS FOR HELP

When he first ran for City Council in 2001, and again in 2005, candidate Jack Weiss made this pledge: he vowed to make the female victims of violent crime his priority. When he spoke to the National Council of Jewish Women, he reaffirmed his promise. But Jack's post-election inaction was deafening. By September 2007, our expectations had dimmed. We sat with Weiss and a thousand others at the annual Santa Monica Rape Treatment Center brunch. Now chairman of the Los Angeles Public Safety Committee, Weiss had yet to lift a finger. Rape victims spoke movingly about their personal ordeals and heroism. Civic leaders told us about the volume of untested LAPD rape kits. Perhaps this time, on this late date, we could goad or shame Jack Weiss into action. We approached Weiss, yet again, for his help.

 

 WEISS TURNED HIS BACK UNTIL RAPE COULD HELP HIM 

Jack brushed away our September 2007 appeals like so many flies. That is, until late 2008, and the ramp up of his campaign for City Attorney. Jack Weiss and the City Council directed $250,000 from the City street furniture fund to test the waiting rape kits. Reports stated that as many as 20% of the DNA samples had degraded to unusable. Weiss publicly proclaimed himself the white knight, rescuing rape victims from the City's dallying. We cringe at the avalanche of television ads broadcasting the "leadership" of Jack Weiss in the fight against rape. City Council Members Jan Perry and Dennis Zine, and rape victims, have called Weiss on his deception. Why did Jack Weiss make victims wait seven long years? Grateful for even his tardy, manipulative attention, they (and we) will never know. More to come...

 Do NOT vote for Jack Weiss for City Attorney

 

 

Forget (for a moment) about how City Hall ran up a $1 billion budget deficit while raising taxes, fees and rates in the biggest boom in history, how it has done nothing about the nation's worst air and traffic, how it drove away business and created the state's highest unemployment.

It isn't like your elected officials can't do anything right when they really care about something.

Take the case of Billy the Elephant, the one issue the City Council has tackled with gusto, spending endless hours in public hearings and debates trying to get right.

The good news is that Billy was moved Saturday to a larger yard and demolition is under way on his old digs as work on completing the new $42 million Pachyderm Exhibit resumes with a September 2010 completion date.

Watched closely by zookeepers, Billy is adjusting to his new year, throwing mud, kicking up river sand and resting under shade trees, according to zoo spokesman Jason Jacobs.

Part One:



Part Two:

By JANE USHER
Former President LA Planning Commission

 

Tuesday is Election Day, and turnout will be low. Your vote will make a difference. In the spirit of putting the City first, I am writing today to share my best ideas for Tuesday:

 

1.  Learn your polling place. 

Some polling places are different from November's presidential election. Your polling place is printed on the back cover of your Official Sample Ballot. Or look it up online at: http://www.lavote.net/LOCATOR/. (Note: parking rules will be relaxed on Tuesday within one block of the polls. No money needed for the meter.)

 

2.  Cast two essential votes.

We can't fix everything with one election. And not every choice on the ballot is crystal clear. But we can unite on voting day to oppose City Hall's worst shenanigans. Every newspaper in the City agrees with me on two key votes:

 

·     Vote for CARMEN TRUTANICH for City Attorney

Trutanich is tough, independent, the most experienced candidate in this race, and committed to enforcing the law. We can't afford to elect a political insider, like Jack Weiss, whose door is closed to our concerns. Trutanich will make City Hall a more open and honorable place.

 

·     Vote NO on Measure B (the solar power scandal)

Our elected officials bypassed every public vetting step to put this half-baked idea on the ballot. Measure B has an appealing solar energy label, but it is a power grab in green clothing and a poster child for bad government.         

 

3.  Make our great city better.

Our current government devotes too much energy to trading favors and building power. Many of our elected officials and bureaucrats are making important decisions based on personal advantage. We need to insist on - and vote for - real leadership, checks and balances, and independence from special interests.

 

Jane Usher