ValleyVote Update for 8-18-01 |
We are sending you this E-mail as you have requested to be notified concerning ValleyVote
You are invited to attend a special meeting of the Governmental Affairs Committee of the United Chambers of Commerce of the San Fernando Valley to participate in an open debate regarding Valley Cityhood. At the conclusion of the discussion, the committee is expected to take a position on the issue.
Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Mission Community Hospital 14850 Roscoe Blvd Medical Office Building, Auditorium 2nd Floor Van Nuys, CA
Parking Instructions: Park on Roscoe between Van Nuys and Sepulveda in the parking structure. Signs will be posted. Walk to the main office building and take the elevator to the 2nd floor. Turn left and go to the end of the hall.
Because seating is limited, you are advised to RSVP your attendance at your earliest convenience by calling Debra Sakacs, Executive Director of UCC at 818-981-4491. Hope to see you all there! Jacque McMillan Chair, Governmental Affairs
See our Website and all the Updates are archived on our site.
Please note some of the links to source sties may go missing as the are some times removed by the original source - sorry!
Here are few stories on how LA operates or fails to operate Some are new and some are old but the story is the same LA has a Bureaucracy that make it the costly city per resident to run in the area. You may form your own opinion about the quality of services compared to other cities which operate at a lower cost per resident.
and a thought for today "I remind you, sir, that extreme patriotism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice no virtue." - Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106 - 43 BC
By Kimit Muston
I apologize. I was foolish. I made a mistake. I underrated the downtown bureaucracy.
I told you that the Local Agency Formation Commission had figured out that taxpayers in the Valley have been sending about $123 million over the hill every year that does not come back to us in services provided. But, it seems, that was not true. It now appears that $123 million could be just the tip of the bureaucratic iceberg.
You see, that initial LAFCO report was just the big picture. Behind it there are myriad little pictures, individual snapshots of what City Hall has been doing with your hard-earned cash for the past 30 years or so. And they aren't pretty pictures.
One of those little snapshots was released recently, a LAFCO report on the cost of police services in the San Fernando Valley. According to LAFCO, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department could provide the same level of protection as the LAPD provides now -- but 40 percent to 50 percent cheaper.
Now, cheaper is not usually a word you want to use to describe police protection. But here are the numbers: According to the brain trust down in Parker Center, there are currently 1,721 LAPD officers working in the Valley at an annual cost to the taxpayers of $230 million. But when LAFCO asked Sheriff Lee Baca how much he would charge for 1,700 deputies to cover the same area, his office only came up with a budget of $130 million to $145 million.
In case your abacus is not functional, that's a difference of $85 million a year. Why the massive overcharge?
Well, according to the LAPD spokesperson, it's because the Sheriff's Department can't add. LAPD insists that the "efficiencies" of two departments this similar in size simply must be about the same. The spokesperson has obviously not lived in this pueblo for very long or they would have known that use of the words "efficiencies" and "government" in the same context constitutes a local syntax violation.
Los Angeles city government does not "must be" anything -- except bloated, redundant and expensive.
As far as mathematical skills, the Sheriff's Department says it figured it out three different ways and came up with the same number every time. Kind of makes you want to look at the math scores down at Parker Center, doesn't it?
The issue here is not the officer on the street. The problem, as those very same officers have for years been telling anybody who was willing to listen, is Parker Center. It's a bureaucracy just like the other bureaucracies that run the other departments within City Hall. These particular bureaucrats may wear blue uniforms but their fundamental bureaucratic guidelines remain the same: Protect your budget and you protect your job; protect your power base and you protect your budget; be no more efficient than required and no more helpful than necessary and you will always meet your goals and exceed expectations.
This isn't the game plan of some evil empire. It's just human nature as expressed through the bureaucratic art form, sort of a red-tape ballet performed in triplicate. Like all creative expression, it begins as dialogue with the viewer and over time degenerates into a monologue between the performer and his ego.
When Thomas Jefferson said, "A little revolution every 20 years or so is a good thing," he wasn't talking about democracy; he was talking about bureaucracy.
A new Valley city may hire the Sheriff's Department, or form its own police force or contract with LAPD to stay on the job. But whichever choice is made, the Valley is not going to continue to pay $230 million for $145 million worth of protection. Neither should the residents of the old pueblo.
Faced with such a revolt -- or to use the vernacular, a secession -- Parker Center could be forced to change, and that would be revolutionary.
But as I said, Parker Center is just another City Hall bureaucracy and there are, I have reason to believe, other snapshots that look a great deal like this one.
Some weeks ago I wrote a column on PRIMA, the cities' central supply system that is choking on its own bloated program while starving city workers for needed supplies. That column produced some fascinating e-mail from some ex-city employees who have more reason than the rest of us to be outraged at the way City Hall wastes money because they know just how much has been wasted.
Kimit Muston lives in the San Fernando Valley and is a frequent contributor to the Daily News. He may be contacted via indicter.com.
By PATRICK MCGREEVY, Times Staff Writer
Elected officials would be banned from voting on issues involving lobbyists who serve as their paid political advisors under a proposal Tuesday by the president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission. Citing concerns over undue influence by insiders, Commission President Miriam Krinsky also proposed that lobbyists be prohibited from raising money for elected officials.
At a meeting Tuesday, the commission directed its staff to draft a written report on both plans. Krinsky, a federal prosecutor, said she is convinced both rules are needed. "It would ensure that the process is one where there aren't some individuals gaining uneven access to elected officials by virtue of financial relationships," Krinsky said.
The proposals were made after The Times reported two-thirds of Los Angeles City Council members have used paid political consultants who double as lobbyists seeking their vote for clients, which some political reform advocates believe gives the legislative advocates undue influence. Longtime lobbyist and political consultant Steve Afriat told the commission Tuesday he supports the existing disclosure rules that let the public know who is lobbying and working for elected officials. "Instead of changing the culture, you want to plug a leak in the bucket. All you are going to do is spring another leak," Afriat said.
The Ethics Commission released a report Tuesday charting the growing influence of lobbyists at City Hall. The report, written by commission senior analyst Renee A. Stadel, indicated lobbyists and their employers had disclosed making, delivering or serving as intermediary for $634,326 in political contributions last year--five times the amount they contributed in 1995.
The number of registered lobbyists has increased
31% since 1995, and "reported spending by lobbyists to influence city
decisions has nearly tripled in that time, from $3.6 million to $10.4 million," the report said.
"The potential to generate a large volume of
campaign contributions by orchestrating fund-raising could lead to undue
influence or its appearance by lobbyists over elected officials," Stadel
said.
The report also showed that 13 lobbyists reported
receiving $415,423 in the past five years as compensation from candidates and
ballot-measure committees to provide campaign management, fund-raising and other
political services.
"Paid political consultants have a special relationship with their clients," Krinsky said, "and we need to be careful not to allow lobbyists to market that relationship, not to market it to potential clients as has been done in the past, and not to market it in a way that restricts the access of other lobbyists to that same elected official."
Commissioner Terrance Fleming also voiced concerns about the current system. "I'm very troubled that a lobbyist is a business and there is no reason a lobbyist would make a contribution unless there was something in it for their business," Fleming said. "I think what the politicians are saying is help me out of this, help me not have some undue influence, let me be as objective as possible."
Commissioner Dale Bonner said he has not seen
evidence that such an ordinance is needed. Bonner said he needs to see proof
that lobbyists who raise money or work as political consultants are gaining
undue influence.
"No matter what we do, this is part of the
democratic system," he said.
Representatives of the lobbying community also
testified against the new regulations Tuesday, saying they are not justified.
"While lobbyists who are active and raise
money and have a great presence in this building do have access probably greater
than the average citizen, so do many other people and many other
organizations," Afriat said.
He suggested that if the city regulates paid
political consultants, it may create a greater problem if some lobbyists instead
work as unpaid political consultants or fund-raisers for those they lobby.
Attorney Jim Sutton, who has represented lobbyists
in the past, told the commission there is no proof that undue influence is being
exerted.
"There has never been any study that linked
campaign contributions to decisions," Sutton told the commission.
He warned the commission to consider how any new
regulations might affect the free speech rights of lobbyists.
"Lobbying is basically a 1st Amendment
right," he said. [Which only those with money
to buy that speech can gain]
Government: More than $8.6 million has been generated for civic improvements in the area, but officials question why little has been done.
By SABRINA DECKER, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles city officials are lagging far behind in collecting and spending millions of dollars for public improvements around Warner Center, city records show. The Woodland Hills commercial center, the business hub of the west San Fernando Valley, has generated more than $8.6 million in fees and interest since 1993.
The fees are designated in the Warner Center Specific Plan, which governs building in the area, and most of it is designed to provide civic improvements to accompany private development. But in several areas, performance has fallen short. Recently, city officials proposed reducing the business fees they charge for new developments, arguing that unfavorable market conditions at Warner Center justify the changes.
Some of the tangles in the Specific Plan:
* A $1.8-million fee owed by developer Jerome H.
Snyder for Warner Marketplace, a local shopping center, which has been overdue
since 1998. The fee is assessed in part to cover the negative impact of traffic
generated by new development.
* One key neighborhood improvement program has
accumulated hundreds of thousands of dollars, but no improvements have been
implemented, city officials said.
* Records are in disarray, to the extent that a
ride-sharing program that promotes carpools, vanpools and other
commuter-friendly measures has received $1 million or $2 million, depending on
which city department is asked.
When asked, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Laura Chick, who represents the Warner Center area, said she would push for explanations. "I want to see my questions answered in writing by the Department [of Transportation] to see a clear explanation of how the money has been spent," Chick said. "I think they're slippery." She also is concerned about the debt from Snyder, who has contributed more than $8,500 to Chick's political coffers. She is running for city controller.
"It's a pretty sloppy accounting practice, it
seems to me, that it sits unresolved for so long," Chick said.
"I had been told it was all resolved by
Snyder," Chick added. "I'm certainly aware Jerry Snyder is a supporter
of mine, but that is irrelevant in terms of collecting money and making tough
phone calls."
Snyder is known for developing a number of
high-profile Los Angeles business offices and shopping centers, including Santa
Monica's Water Garden II.
Allyn Rifkin, an engineer with the Department of
Transportation, acknowledged that the city was lax in pursuing Snyder.
"In retrospect, I think we should have gone
after the debt more aggressively," Rifkin said. He said he should have
referred the matter to the city attorney's office. "I'm just embarrassed we
didn't do it right away."
Snyder had planned to pay off the debt through an
unusual credit transfer planned with Rockwell International/Boeing North
American Inc., a Warner Center-area landowner.
When Snyder purchased property at Canoga Avenue and Victory Boulevard, Boeing agreed to transfer a portion of credits it had accumulated against city fees to Snyder. The transfer has not taken place, so Snyder is $1.8 million in arrears. Originally, Snyder told the city the transfer would be completed by October 1998.
According to city records, since 1999 the city has
only contacted Snyder once about the debt, in January 2000.
In a recent interview, Snyder said he never saw
that letter, and until recently he thought Boeing independently settled the
matter years ago.
Rifkin said he spoke with Snyder after the letter
was sent. Snyder told him at that time that there was a disagreement over how
much of the highly valuable credit Boeing would hand over, Rifkin said.
Some of the Warner Center money is supposed to
fund a neighborhood traffic mitigation program designed to keep urban traffic
out of residential areas. About $350,000 has been collected, and a plan to spend
the money should have been drafted seven years ago, said city transportation
engineer Nader Asmar.
But to date, the mitigation program exists only on
paper.
Current and previous board members of the Woodland Hills Homeowner's Organization said their attempts to determine the reason for the delays have been frustrated. "[City officials] have done nothing to even try to alleviate traffic in residential areas," said Shirley Blessing, a member of the board of directors of the homeowners group. "At the very least, tell us how much you've collected, how much you have spent, and how much money is available today to use for neighborhood protection."
The neighborhood program originally was designed to help shield communities from urban traffic--cars in the busy urban center cutting through residential streets. But the area has seen far less growth than expected, so there has been less need and demand for the program, Chick said.
Board members of the homeowners organization
disagreed, saying their repeated requests have gone unheard. "These issues
have been voiced as constant concerns at each and every public hearing, I
guarantee you," board member Gordon Murley said. "And Mrs. Chick's
office has been unresponsive to all of it."
Bob Gross, former president of the Woodland Hills
Homeowner's Organization, said he and other committee members asked repeatedly
about the program, and were told there was a problem paying for the city's
staffing and overhead.
Specific Plan guidelines prohibit funds collected for the neighborhood program from being used for anything but residential street improvements. Now, city officials want to take up to 10% to pay administrative expenses. Officials originally discussed using up to 40% of the fund to pay for an additional employee to handle the program, Rifkin said. All other employees are paid directly by the city.
City documents show that a separate general
administrative fund for Warner Center, with a balance of up to $74,000, has not
been tapped since 1995. Rifkin said he would not use it for the neighborhood
program.
"City departments are in my view notorious
for looking for various ways and pots of money for paying for overhead,"
Chick said. "I want to make sure we put money into actual mitigation and
not double-dip and overcharge."
After The Times contacted the parties involved in
the Snyder debt, representatives of Boeing, Snyder and the departments of City
Planning and Transportation met on the issue.
All parties now say they expect the transfer to be
completed in the next few weeks, but a letter from Snyder's company in 1998
offered a similar promise.
"Until I get documentation, from my point of
view this thing is still up in the air," Rifkin said.
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. **If you friends want to be added to our E-mail list please send an E-mail with ValleyVote as the subject. We share our e-mail list with no one. Charles Brink Webmaster. If you want to have your name removed from the list just reply with remove as subject |