For years, the policies of City Hall have chased away middle class jobs and residents to the suburbs and neighboring states.
Home ownership has fallen from more than 60 percent to barely 40 percent. The living wage has replaced the good wage. Major banks have run away along with movie and TV production.
The San Fernando Valley saw a 50 percent rise in poverty rates in the ’90s and the numbers will be worse across the city in the next census.
Crime is down but gangs still control whole neighborhoods.
Subsidized downtown development and soaring public sector payrolls have sucked the wealth of the city while traffic congestion and air quality remain the nation’s worst, the schools remain among the state’s worst and the infrastructure — water and power systems, streets and sidewalks — are decaying from lack of investment.
It’s not a pretty picture but it’s going to get worse and fast.
On Tuesday, the City Council intends — having bungled its first attempt two months ago — to take another stab at stripping ordinary citizens of their constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances, specifically planning decisions.
Under the ordinance adopted unanimously, of course, on Aug. 12, fees to appeal planning decisions and Building and Safety actions were supposed to skyrocket from nominal amounts to thousands of dollars except for developers of major projects. They would get a reduction on many of the appeals they file.
What was wrong with the ordinance, apart from many of the fees — apart from various typos and fees being supposedly being incorrectly listed – is that the public wasn’t given proper notice that the fee schedule affected appeals. Most of the public discussion and the agenda notice only referred to application fees which were raised to guarantee developers speedy processing.
Attorney Robert Silverstein objected strongly to this Brown Act violation and City Attorney Carmen Trutanich’s office, which conceding nothing, agreed the measure should be fixed and reconsidered.
So it comes back before the Council as Item 23 on Tuesday, with changes like “full cost recovery” is now replaced with only charging applicants and abutting property owners 20 percent of the cost and other “aggrieved parties” 50 percent.
“The draft ordinance was initiated in response to a complaint that the appeal fees were
not properly described on the City Council agenda… it is our belief that appeal fees
should be reasonable to allow for broad community input,” explained Planning Director Gail Goldberg.
How does raising appeal fees from $1,000 to $3,000 or from $400 to more than $5,000 when a nearby property owner objects to a development “allow for broad community input?”
In fact, it squelches community input — and that argues the Green LA Coalition is “contrary to the City’s commitment to environmental justice,” according to a letter to the Council sent by school board member Nury Martinez and environmentalist Bill Gallegos.
excessive fees will unfairly exclude low-income residents and
non-profit organizations from the planning and land use decision-making
process…With the approval of the 1999 City Charter, the
people of Los Angeles codified their right to appeal City land use
“The appeal process serves as an important point of resident
involvement in planning and land use decision-making, and has a long
history of preserving the quality of life in Los Angeles and protecting
the health and safety of its residents. The appeal fee hikes deny
low-income residents and non-profits their fundamental rights to
Arguing the fees violate the state and US constitutions, Attorney Richard MacNaughton formally protested to the Council (Planning-MacNaughton.doc)as the lawyer representing various residents in Hollywood as well as community based
organizations such a Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning (H.E.L.P.),
Friends of the Hollywood Grove HPOZ, Friends of The Oaks ICO among others.
MacNaughton says the ordinance infringes on the right of people to protest and is unconstitionally vague, noting there is “no rational” reason a property owner two doors away from a development faces triple the fees as one next door.
object to the City’s actions, they are exercising their constitutional right to
petition the government,” he writes. “The City has the burden to prove that any and all
limitations on the right to petition the City serve a compelling ‘state
interest.”‘This tiered fee system has no legitimate governmental purpose…
ordinance is unconstitutional in that it cannot survive the strict scrutiny test
due to its infringement on the people’s right to petition the government and its
vagueness. To pass a measure that is unconstitutional on its face invites
litigation and wastes the City’s resources.
unconstitutional proposal should be defeated.”
You can write your Council member at the email addresses below to try to stop this or you can join the lawsuit afterward if it passes: