Inching toward the point of no return at the edge of a steep cliff, the City Council for the fourth time in two years was moving forward Wednesday on the sale – or as they prefer to call it the 50-year lease — of city-owned parking lots downtown and in Hollywood, Westwood and Sherman Oaks.
There was some grim satisfaction in watching them squirm so uncomfortably into various verbal contortions as they wrung their hands and beat their breasts as they endured two hours of residents, city workers and business leaders telling them that what they were considering doing was idiotic, counter-productive and failed to do anything to fix the budget crisis except buy a few more months time.
The criticisms from all quarters applied equally to proposals for more furloughs and layoffs and cuts in public services as to the futility of the fire sale of grossly mismanaged city assets.
There was Parks hitting in them in the face with their imprudent decision to put $53 million in revenue in this year’s budget from the parking lots sale that may never happen and their failure to start laying off city workers in October as envisioned in the budget.
But then he waffled about what to do next, noting the city faces a $350 million deficit next and already has trouble borrowing money — a big problem since they need fully $1.5 billion in loans on July 1 to have cash for next year, starting with the $900 million payment to employee pension funds. .
Smith echoed what Parks said but in more egotistical and angrier language before selling out and suggesting he’d probably go forward with the sale even though it was the wrong thing to do.
Rosendahl actually touched on the truth, saying the only real answer wasn’t one-time savings from furloughs or fire sales or even layoffs that hurt those who lost their jobs as well as the public in general.
The best answer was for the entire city work force to take cuts in pay and benefits so the problem could actually be solved once and for all — the way Jerry Brown has proposed fixing the state budget crisis much to the displeasure of our mayor and Council.
But since that was unlikely, he thought selling the lots and avoiding any pain for workers sounded like a best choice they had.
And so it went around the horseshoe with Reyes’ apocalyptic warning that a lousy $1 million cut to the Planning Department would suspend all work except for those that developers pay fees for to expedite approval of their projects.
The entertainment as always was provided by LaBonge who was so clueless he kept waving his arms like John Walsh and urging everyone to see the big picture, but not think outside the box, and come up with some really new ideas no one ever heard before so they don’t have to make any hard decisions .. unless they have to.
It seemed like he had overdosed on his psychotropic prescription more than usual but he’s such a great guy who has total recall of so many irrelevant details of LA’s history, it’s hard to hold it against him.
At least, that’s what the Council seemed to feel since nobody even bothered to laugh at him for a change.
Mostly, it was Garcetti’s show, spewing streams of double-talk with a fixed smile, taking all sides of all questions but leaving no doubt the Council would green light seeking bids from the 19 qualified banks, parking lot companies and bottom-feeding hedge fund types. .
He empathized totally with the merchants of Hollywood and Westwood who say free or at least cheap parking keeps the cash registers humming and this deal will send parking charges soaring and leave them uncompetitive with businesses neighboring towns from Santa Monica to Burbank and Glendale
But then he got CAO Miguel Santana to pointedly note that any conditions imposed on the sale to keep rates low would make the deal worthless.
Sounding more and more mayoral — or at least like the current mayor — the Council President talked about the need for sacrifice by everyone, well almost everyone.
With that, they went behind closed doors to eat catered lunches and talk among themselves in private on just how to manage the situation to avoid infuriating their constituents to the point they get thrown out of office.
The plain fact is it will take a miracle or the greatest Houdini trick ever for them to escape the windowless, door-less box they have created around themselves — a box that looks more and more like a coffin so tightly sealed even blood-sucking vampires could not escape.
The meeting today, as much as I could take, was almost as much circus as meeting. Janice Hahn, as ethically-challenged as she is, never fails to amuse with her comments that she doesn’t even notice are double-edged. Janice commented that the operation of the city parking structures wasn’t done well. As close as I can recall, she said, “Since it looks clear that we don’t manage parking lots well, we should get out of the parking lot business.”
She could have added other things that they don’t manage well, like the city business- but would you expect her to say, “So I think we should get out of the city managing business”? But they should- and that’s long overdue.
Ed Reyes’ comments tend to mystify, and it hurts to listen to him as I wonder if he really believes all the things he says that I am sure he understands much better than I can decipher. When he said, “We want to save our jobs…” I do believe he could ahave meant “our city workers’ jobs” but maybe he really meant “council members’” when he said “our.”
You know that they all don’t want to rock the boat and hurt anyone’s chances to be re-elected in March, so all the commenter are watching what they say, especially the ones in the even-numbered districts who will be testing the waters two years before the rest.
Garcetti speaks so fast, like a verbal acrobat that can’t be caught since he does not linger in one place very long. He tries to satisfy all people that at least he cares about them in his allotted time.
Maybe Garcetti thinks that just by reciting what the impacts are to assorted interests under the assorted possible outcomes for this parking lease issue will make people think he hears their concern but recognizing the concerns and acting on that favorably are two different things.
I agree with the observation on Smith, the angry part- sometimes he gets so wound up and covers so many views that you can’t really tell for a while just what side of the issue he, or other CMs will settle on. I thought Smith would be against the stop-gap leasing measure but his claiming credit for raising the idea 2-1/2 years ago doesn’t sound that way. I still am not sure if he really supported the leasing.
Well, let’s see what’s next.
This is just the beginning of the Train Wreck. Wait until March and April when the budget is released. They will be squealing like stuck pigs. This is “budget dust” as they call it in Sacramento.
Many times on this blog or in articles regarding public employees, statements are made in reference to employee pay and benefit cuts. How is this to be done? The devil is in the details. How do you force someone making $20/hour on June 30th to embrace $16/hour on July 1st for doing the same job? I don’t think it’s legal for them to go to each employee and say accept this or you’re fired so how do you make the “…entire city work force to take cuts in pay and benefits so the problem could actually be solved once and for all”?
The solution is more straightforward for new employees: offer the job at a certain wage, increase mandatory retirement contribution from 7% of gross pay to 10 or 12%. For health care: raise retirement age from 55 after 30 years employment to 65 so there is no gap when Medicare takes over or add a small percentage to the current Medicare contribution of 1.4% of gross pay to cover the years between 55 and 65 years (assuming the employee has worked for 30 years by age 55). Any prospective employee knows the terms up front and is free to accept or decline. There are likely to be serious issues with a two-tier wage scale but the retirement and health benefits would probably pass legal muster.
For the other categories, the solutions are not so straightforward.
For people already retired, will they be expected to rejoin the workforce when their pay or benefits are cut? How will that affect the unemployment situation in CA if this is applied statewide? I don’t see this as a likely scenario.
The most contentious would be the current employees. Current employees at the beginning of their careers may be able to easily adjust but those on the other end will be more problematic. If the City tries to shift to a 401K instead of a pension, will they then be required to start paying payroll taxes so the employees would be eligible for Social Security? What of those at the end of their careers who do not have time to accumulate the ten years needed for SS eligibility before age 65?
None of these sweeping proclamations for cutting salaries and benefits factor in the cost of the obligatory litigation. With the short attention span of politicians already on the hunt for their next job, who will keep up with this multi-year battle?
It has been my experience that the city has an older than average workforce and they are the least likely to accept change or compromise. They feel like they have already paid their dues and very few have worked anywhere else. As a younger city worker who has private industry experience, I am willing to take a pay cut and pay more for benefits in order to keep my job and get back to a full work schedule. You can always adjust your budget if you are paid less, but you never get back the time that you lose to furloughs when you are actually trying to do your job effectively. My advice to those unwilling to sacrifice, be prepared to do the jobs of those who are laid off. The people go away, but the work remains.
I think it’s very interesting information. I’ll write the research papers about this problem.
To Anonymous @ 8:06 p.m.
You’re probably right that there is a disconnect between younger city workers and older. Very few long term employees would choose to work more hours for the same pay and they have less to fear from layoff threats than those same younger city workers. As far as doing the jobs of those laid off, that’s not guaranteed either. The public is clamoring for less government so the City will have to focus their remaining employees on the services the public is willing to fund.
I couldn’t even watch these low life bastards on my computer. They are the most dysfunctional group of losers this city has to offer. They have no leadership what so ever and are lapdogs to the FAILURE OF A MAYOR. They can’t think for themselves. Rosendahl the one who people think is weak at least spoke the truth. These are the same fools who decided to raise the meter parking. It costs $3 most places. This is why Los Angeles is in the toliet and every surrounding City is doing much better. WE have clowns running the show. I agree with Jack the train wreck has started. Its unbelievable how many grown adults are clueless and uneducated. Community members are more active and intelligent then they are. I say get Brown to a LANCC meeting and let him hear the truth of what these bastards have done to our city.
I’ve got an idea for less government. I think we should redraw the city’s districts, and reduce the number of councilmembers from 15 to 10. I fail to see why the city needs so many councilmenbers, and saving the salaries of 5 councilmembers, plus all of their support staff, would result in significant permanent savings to the city. In addition, I think all citizens of the city should be able to vote for every councilmember, not just for a councilmember in their “district.” If all of LA got to vote on who should be elected, then councilmembers might be concerned about what is best for the city as a whole, rather than the self-serving interests of their own district. Just my opinion.
Why should a city currently subsidize free or cheap parking? Shouldn’t we let the free market decide what people will pay for to park their car? If you want “free parking”..why don’t you take the Metro or move somewhere there’s more mobility options outside of a car. All of these places were cheap and free parking is available are very transit accessible. Let’s stop catering to the private automobile. Isn’t free parking what brings more traffic? Imagine if people had to pay to park….I’m assuming they would go Metro.
9:14 —
Los Angeles already has the largest council districts in the nation. Our Councilmembers represent more people than many members of Congress!
The administrative cost of Council is small compared to the overall budget. To have more responsive representation at City Council, we would be better off with about 25 council members. Then they would be less “little kings and queens” of their districts and just part of a whole crowd of councilmembers. That would weaken the current stranglehold councilmembers have on their districts. There would be a greater tendency for voting to be less unanimous.
That said, something must be done by the people about the obscene pay received by the Mayor, Controller, and City Council Members. They need to be untied from the pay of judges.
Under Ed Reyes’ Chairmanship of PLUM, the Planning Department has sunk to its lowest level. The man has never questioned the poor quality and quantity of work. He just wants to keep sinking in the taxpayers money into a department that has such little output. The same conditions exist in all city departments. A 10% cut across the board would do the city good.
City Hall’s Lost Boys and Girls — Council in a Box with No Escape, thanks for the article