Measure S Might shake things up at City Hall !
The biggest fight in the March's election will not be about all these folks from city hall facing challengers. There is no serious campaign being mounted by any challenger against the mayor or any council-member who is up for re-election. Most of these politicians will be returning back to their offices after the election. The looming fight though, in the next eight weeks leading up to March, will be about Measure S.
According to the Measure S website [www.voteyesons.org], the measure will basically impose a two-year moratorium on mega construction projects that require changes in city planning rules. There is an exception for projects aiming at building affordable housing units. The measure is backed by Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and a longtime maverick in gay activist circles. He argues that “mega-developments” are changing the character of this city and are destroying neighborhoods after neighborhoods by displacing poor residents. Mr. Weinstein appears to have an apocalyptic message about the dire consequences of letting developers determining how to build in Los Angeles. He clearly has the resources to make his voice boom through the rooms and halls of the city hall. Michael Weinstein has been dubbed as the "biggest political spender in the 2016 elections." He has been likened to big political spenders to the caliber of George Soros, Kock brothers, and even the NRA. This is interesting because his organization is a well-financed non-profit with millions to burn in electoral politics. And, just in 2016, this foundation spent $22 million on two statewide measures. Michael Weinstein is well known in political circles and in in the halls of powers at city hall, county board and Sacramento.
In light of the current voters’ dissatisfaction with political elites, it would be interesting to see if this man leading this powerful non-profit organization is able to make the case to Angelenos that the current "City Hall’s pay-to-play culture" is no longer sustainable and that power must be taken away from developers. Michael Weinstein has literally declared war to politicians at city hall. He has forced conversations about political contributions and he is exposing council-members and the mayor's cozy relationships with rich and powerful developers in Los Angeles. He hopes that Angelenos will revolt just as voters did last year when they voted to elect Trump for President. Voters just wanted Trump to blow up the system. They wanted radical change. They wanted something new, they didn't care if the cure was worse than the disease.
Labor, developers, businesses, and anti-gentrification forces they are all sharpening their political knives for this fight. Yes, Labor and the Business community have joined forces to defeat this measure. Millions will be spent and those defending the status quo have already started scaring voters. Indeed, lawsuits have been filed and these groups are battling it out in courts. "The sky will fall, jobs will be killed, the economy will tank and poor people will be the real victims because stopping the constructions of fancy housing is not good for the poor," the forces against this Measure are screaming at top of their lungs. Their logic here is that if we keep building at one point supply will surpass demand. Then, the poor will start getting the housing they can afford. The problem with that is that it is the very same argument that has been made by developers for the last 10 years. And, poor people and people of color kept moving to the desert, a place they have found affordable. Labor, being led by construction workers’ unions, has had many opportunities to ask for housing the poor but they have just gone along with developers. They just wanted those construction jobs to keep coming. In November last year, Labor swung and missed with Measure JJJ. They collaborated with developers to sell this measure to voters and it passed. Said measure was nothing more than about cosmetic changes and really didn’t do much or will not do much to alleviate the housing crisis poor people are facing in this city.
In politics, timing is everything pundits tell us. Indeed, many Angelenos have grown cynical as they have seen nothing but very small incremental changes being made about the crisis dealing with affordable housing in this city. They see this “pay to play culture” at city hall and see that this city is truly a city of developers, by developers and for developers. Rarely is the week that goes by without the media publishing articles about the political contributions given to the Mayor and City council-Members by developers trying to get exceptions from city land-use laws to build projects worth millions. Disturbingly, sometimes checks were issued to these city political leaders while projects were being under consideration.
It is also sick and ridiculous how these real estate people endeavor to find ways to give political contributions to these politicians. Developer, Samuel Leung, for example, cut checks for friends, relatives, and associates so these checks could be channeled to politicians in City Hall. Then, billionaire and powerful developer, Rick Caruso and other powerful organizations with projects being considered gave large checks to the mayor’s non-profit organization and his pet project, “Measure M.” To add insult to injury these politicians have the audacity to tell Angelinos that all these political contributions play no role in their decisions when approving these developments. All development projects are solely evaluated on the “merits,” these politicians from the city hall tell us. Laughable. So far, I am leaning to vote "Yes" on this Measure.
Thank you for reading.
____________________________________________________________________________
Sources used.
Aron, Hillel. “L.A.'s Biggest Spender in the 2016 Election Is a Nonprofit With Millions to Spare.” LA Weekly 5 Nov. 2016. Web. Accessed Jan. 9, 2017. <http://www.laweekly.com/news/las-biggest-spender-in-the-2016-election-is-a-nonprofit-with-millions-to-spare-7575242>.
“City Hall’s pay-to-play culture.” Editorial. Los Angeles Times 6 Jan. 2017, A12. Print
Dembosky, April. “From Maverick AIDS Activist To Porn Cop: The Man Behind Proposition 60.” npr.org 2nd Nov. 2016. Web. Accessed Jan. 10, 2017. <http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/02/500039336/from-maverick-aids-activist-to-porn-cop-the-man-behind-proposition-60>.
Lopez, Steve. "When it comes to political donations in L.A., what's legal can be worse than what's not." Los Angeles Times 11 Jan. 2017. Web. Accessed Jan.12. <http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0111-lopez-campaign-donations-20170110-story.html>.
Platin, Dick. “A Must for LA in 2017: More Hard-Hitting Investigative Reporting.” CityWatch 29 Dec. 2016. Web. Accessed Jan. 11, 2017. <http://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/los-angeles/12362-a-must-for-la-in-2017-more-hard-hitting-investigative-reporting>.
Say No to The Olympics in 2024! LA Can't Afford Them
I still fondly remember the 1984's Olympic games hosted here in Los Angeles. I had been living in LA for three years. I was young and green and I felt welcomed in this awesome city. Hence, I immediately endeavored to weave myself into the fabric of this very diverse and awesome community. I managed to understand the forces that were at play in this great city. Indeed, LA's economic, environmental, social, cultural and political forces all manifested themselves in a beautiful struggle.
I am making my case in this piece that our city shouldn't be bidding for these games. As you all know, The US Olympic Committee (USOC) has named Los Angeles as the US bid city for hosting the 2024 games after Boston dropped out. Los Angeles is currently facing daunting problems and I am concerned about the potential financial burden that hosting these games might bring to our city.
Everywhere I turn, I hear the same arguments that LA hosted the games very successfully in 1984. They go on and tell you that the weather was awesome, the competition was fear, the festivities were great for our city, and that the games elevated LA to the world stage. All that is true.
What is not being said is that all the success achieved didn't just fall off the sky. The two men responsible for said success: Mayor Tom Bradley and local businessman Peter Ueberroth, Both men provided the vision needed for this major worldwide event. Clearly, LA doesn't currently have the leadership of this caliber anymore.
It is important to point out that in 1984, Mayor Bradley and Businessman Peter Ueberroth called for a "budget-conscious" in hosting these games. They were keenly aware of the profound financial failures that the city of Montreal had encountered in 1976. They told Angelinos that what had happened in Montreal was not going to happen here in LA. The City of Montreal was held liable for $1.5 billion, the costs exceeded the projected revenues and the city had to pay for the debt. That had meaningful negative implications in the quality of life of the city of Montreal.
These two LA’s leaders bluntly told the Olympic games’ people that LA was happy to host the games. But, the city was not going to be held responsible for any cost overruns(this term is used when costs exceed revenues). It was a "take it or leave it" proposition. People from the Olympic Games were not happy to hear such proposition and they initially balked. But in the end, Los Angeles was finally relieved from any financial responsibility. And, the rest was history-the 1984's Olympic Games were an utter success. That was also the only time in history that a city had actually made a dime out of these games. This is not the case now. Mayor Garcetti is bidding for these games and Los Angeles will be responsible for any debt in the event that the projected revenues don't pan out.
Los Angeles, our leaders have been telling us lately, is the best city in the world. It is not just a city of promise but "a city of tremendous innovation and resilience. Our city is the capital of the pacific and we do things well on the international stage. Los Angeles was cut to host this Olympic games-we did it successfully in 1932 and 1984. And, we should be able to do it one more time.” While I wholeheartedly agree with all these adjectives being used here to describe this great city, I join the chorus of others in this city who persuasively argues that the mayor’s optimism that LA will make a profit in hosting these games in 2024 is disconnected to the reality on the ground.
Some background here. The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) selected Boston last winter to host games. Yes, many Bostonians were elated and were looking forward to witnessing these games in 2024. Nevertheless, After carefully examination by civically engaged citizens and other powerful civic groups, Boston's mayor decided not to host the games this past July. They projected that unexpected costs were going to exceed revenues-Boston was not willing to take any risk. Immediately after Boston withdrew, the USOC looked at Los Angeles as the best city to host these games. They reached to Mayor Garcetti and urged the LA mayor to bid for these games. The application's deadline was mid-September the IOC will make announce it in the summer of the next what country will host the games.
The table below is a screenshot taken from the LA24 Bid book presented by the mayor GAMES BUDGET (August 2015)
A quick look at the table above, we can see that the mayor is presenting a proposed contract for total costs of $4.666.2 with the USOC and IOC. The $1.700.0 billion at the far top right is a projection being made by the mayor of the investments made by private organizations. For example, to radically renovate the Coliseum will cost at least $500 million, according to many people familiar with this type of renovation. This will be a sort of private investment needed for this thing to work. USC will have to cough up all the money to convert this stadium into a modern Olympic center. Thus, the overall cost for these games will be at least $5.8 billion [$4.116.2 + $1.7.00] that will not include the contingency and the insurance premium above. The mayor is forcefully arguing that LA will not be liable for anything because after all numbers are computed Los Angeles will actually make $161.1 [net position above] million after broadcast rights, sponsorships, and ticket revenues are brought in. It is interesting that very same projections were made in the Winter Games in Vancouver and in the 2012 Summer Games in London. These two cities encountered major problems in finishing these construction projects
Two problems with the Mayor's projections above. First, most cities tend to find problems with private investments, when private money doesn't come in, cities are liable. Second, the mayor's revenue projections are very small. $161 million out of $4.6 billion is a very small margin and doesn't give enough room to adjust. What if there were a worldwide catastrophe or a worldwide recession and people are unable to travel and attend these games. LA will be liable for all cost overruns. That means the money will have to come from the general fund to cover these costs. Can we afford to take money out of our public safety programs or to eliminate other vital programs needed int this city? Of course not.
The Mayor's people argue that it makes a lot of sense to host the Olympic Games of 2024 here in our city. For starters, these people claim that LA has the venues and the infrastructure in place. Nothing can go wrong, security is ready to protect athletes and people, all logistics have been figured out and tested-we will succeed. It is not that easy. Hosting these games requires tremendous efforts from all the different sectors that comprise a city. At least seven years are needed to make sure all centers needed are built or fixed.
In light of the intractable problems facing Los Angeles, can we honestly say that we can host these games? I say no. We have a housing crisis, crime in South Central Los Angeles doesn’t stop, a profound lack of civic engagement among our citizens, and the city still struggles with a faltering and de-industrialized economy that has left many without good jobs. And, we can't ignore the Grand Canyon-size gap between rich and poor in Los Angeles.
The greatness of our city should not be measured by how many Olympic games we host or how many states of the art stadiums and arenas we build. But how we can help those who have lost hope and live in misery in Los Angeles.
Thank you for reading and Happy New Year to all of you...