LA Philanthropy Watch

On March 3, I did a post about a surprising victory for the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight, a local advocacy group, which defends public spaces against the assault of outdoor advertising.  A businessman, after landing in jail for flouting the law, removed the huge, illegal supergraphic from his building at Hollywood and Highland.  Since then other illegal signs have also disappeared.  CBBB’s website reports that Fuel Outdoor has recently removed a number of illegally posted signs, some of which had been up for five years, and CBS Outdoor has removed illegal 11-story signs from a 1926 building (pictured) on Highland below Santa Monica Boulevard that has been host to illegal supergraphics for six years.  (Click on the link for before and after photos.)

I recently offered a brief series of questions via email to CBBB’s president, Dennis Hathaway.  The questions and responses appear below:

Q. Where else [apart from the city attorney's actions] has the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight focused its attention?

A. The fight against illegal billboards and supergraphic signs has been a major effort of ours over the past several years.  But our larger mission is to try to stop the invasion of the city’s public spaces and visual environment by commercial advertising, and that involves legal as well as illegal signage.  In 2006, the city approved a lawsuit settlement that allowed the conversion of 877 conventional billboards to digital, and when the adverse affects of these signs became clear we successfully pushed for a moratorium on those conversions, which in turn led to the adoption of a no-exceptions ban on any new off-site advertising signs in the city.  We have also lobbied against proposals for special sign districts that would allow new commercial advertising, including digital signage, in such places as the L.A. Convention Center and Koreatown, and supported revisions to the city sign ordinance that would protect citizens from an excess of outdoor advertising.

Q. Is the City Council taking any steps in the right direction?

A. While a few city council members have supported our efforts, the council as a whole has a poor record when it comes to controlling both the legal and illegal proliferation of outdoor advertising.  The 2006 lawsuit settlement mentioned previously was an unmitigated disaster for communities where the digital billboards appeared, and was invalidated late last year by a Superior Court judge.  Some city council members appear to view outdoor advertising as a potential source of revenue for the city, while others are supportive of claims by business groups and sign interests that outdoor advertising creates more jobs and economic activity.

Q. Does the Planning Commission have a role?

A. The Planning Commission has played a significant role in the past, by pushing for a moratorium on new billboards and other off-site advertising.  The commission also approved an extensive revision of the city sign ordinance that had provisions controlling the spread of outdoor advertising, and cracking down on illegal signs.  Those revisions have not yet been acted upon by the City Council, and new appointments to the planning commission appear to have tilted it more toward the view that commercial advertising is important to the encouragement of new development in the city.

Q. Is there anyone in city government who has been especially helpful – or who has taken a special interest in advancing this issue?

A. City Attorney Carmen Trutanich is the one city official taking an aggressive stand on the issue.  He promised during his election campaign to go after the illegal outdoor advertisements, primarily billboards and supergraphic signs, and he has followed through on that promise by filing lawsuits and even criminal charges against property owners and sign companies that have been used to flouting the law in the past.

Q. Is there anyone, or any group, that has joined forces with Ban Billboard Blight?

A. In addition to individuals, we represent homeowner’s associations, community organizations, and civic groups.  For example, we joined forces with two homeowner’s associations to challenge the legality of permits issued for three digital billboards in the Westwood area on the grounds that they violated local zoning regulations, and the area planning commission upheld our position.  When we organized a volunteer inventory of billboards in two city council districts last year, Councilman Bill Rosendahl and now-Councilman Paul Koretz publicly endorsed our efforts and provided some help from their staffs.  We maintain close contact with other groups involved in the issue in California and other parts of the country, because most of the sign companies have a national presence and the legislative and legal challenges are similar everywhere.  We also have a close working relationship with the national group, Scenic America, which provides information and logistical support.

Q. CBBB is interested in billboard blight (not just illegal billboards).  Can you point to any communities in California or the nation that have enacted legislation that you believe represent a step in the right direction regarding visual blight?

A. There are notable examples right here in Southern California.  Cities like Santa Monica, Burbank, Culver City, and Pasadena, to name a few, do not allow any new billboards or off-site advertising signs, and vigorously enforce regulations against any illegal sign activity.  Houston, Texas, a city very similar to Los Angeles in size and diversity, put strict sign regulations in effect more than a decade ago, and now has less than half as many billboards as L.A.  Kansas City, Missouri, is currently rewriting its sign ordinance to strictly limit digital billboards and new outdoor advertising.  These cities recognize that an excess of commercial advertising in the visual environment degrades that environment, and has a negative effect on the quality of life of its citizens.

“For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.”

This is how David Leonhardt begins his article (”In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality,” New York Times, March 23, 2010), which puts this legislation into a larger historical and social context.    The law marks an attempt to chip away at trickle down economics and to assist the American middle class, which has seen real income stagnate since 1980 (while the real income of the top one percent of Americans has doubled).

This morning’s Los Angeles Times provides: a Q&A on the new law (”What’s in it for you?” by Phil Galewitz), profiles of four people affected by the law (”Profiles in coverage,” by Tammy Worth and Lisa Zamosky), and a look at changes in Medicare coverage (”Medicare ‘doughnut hole’ will close in new healthcare plan,” by Christopher Weaver).

With this post, marking the success of health care reform, I am pleased to turn the attention of LA Philanthropy Watch away from this battle, which this blog has followed for many months.

On July 22, 2009, I posted a critical review of “The War on Philanthropy,” an article in Commentary by David Billet, which argued that President Obama was hostile to nonprofit organizations.  The article was a concerted attack on a proposal by the White House to raise taxes on the nation’s most affluent households in order to provide health insurance for middle- and working-class families.  In asserting that the top 1.2 percent of American households should not have to pay marginally higher taxes, Mr. Billet gave no consideration – even in passing – to the tens of millions of Americans who lack basic health insurance.

On August 13, 2009, I wrote about a health care rally and prayer vigil in my neighborhood staged by LA Voice – the first of many posts on local nonprofits and community organizers advocating for health care reform.   By mid-October, I had decided to offer coverage of the health care reform fight – with or without a local angle to the story.   As I noted in a subsequent post:

“What does this have to do with the nonprofit sector?  Just this: charity – with any number of free clinics – is not an argument against health care reform.  A system that leaves 46 million Americans without health insurance, and offers emergency rooms and community clinics as alternatives, is dysfunctional.

The for-profit marketplace cannot provide basic health care to tens of millions of Americans.  This is a textbook example of a market failure. The nonprofit sector – with vision and generosity – has stepped into the breach.  But uninsured individuals and families continue to be ill-served by this arrangement.  And the clients and communities served by many social service organizations are disproportionately affected.

Basic social justice demands action by the public sector – the government.”

On Thursday, March 18, the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council hosted a candidate forum; 19 candidates (from a field of 23) attended.  With the exception of Charley Mims, whom I had met at a meeting in the community years ago before councils were established, I was unfamiliar with the candidates and their positions.  (I gathered that Mr. Mims has not been embraced by the reform slate.)

I didn’t think to count people in attendance, but I believe the candidates and GGPNC volunteers who were staging the forum came close to outnumbering the audience.

At the beginning of the forum, the moderator read the ground rules, which were quite restrictive.  Was this deemed necessary to keep exchanges respectful?  The candidates were not allowed to direct comments to other candidates, to ask questions of other candidates, or to mention other candidates by name.  The audience was permitted to ask only questions that were submitted in writing in advance.  Virtually no background information on the council, the election, or the candidates was offered to the audience during the forum.

The candidates had 2 minutes each to introduce themselves.  Then a short series of written questions were read, one at a time, and each candidate had 1 minute to respond.  So we in the audience observed how candidates presented themselves; we learned a bit about their views and approach to two or three issues – including their position on “reform.”

But it was surprising what we didn’t learn.  While several candidates mentioned their experience with the council, it was not clear which ones were incumbents.  (GGPNC committee volunteers need not have seats on the council.)  Apparently several appointed incumbents were running for elected seats, while other incumbents on the board had launched the reform slate.  But which ones?  No one at the forum identified themselves as part of a slate or, as far as I recall, even made reference to a slate.  (Perhaps this was banned by the restrictive ground rules.)

If the reformers win, and I anticipate that the slate will have a very good showing, they will have succeeded in changing the dynamics of neighborhood council elections – at least in our neighborhood.

There are drawbacks with the introduction of professional campaign and election strategies to a grassroots volunteer group.  Slates may increase polarization, making divisions more distinct and indelible.  A civic-minded volunteer who wishes to participate may be required to choose a side – to take advantage of the visibility, resources, and reach that only affiliation with a slate can provide.

As the dynamics of the council evolve, GGPNC may increasingly come to resemble – for good and for ill – other legislative institutions.  The council may even develop into a stepping stone to higher office, which would represent a distinct change.

As I have mentioned, slates are also likely to boost participation, which is more likely to be regarded as an unalloyed benefit.

[Image of the first speaker at Thursday night’s forum, Christina Khanjian, who – it turns out – is running on the Los .Feliz Forward slate.  There is a better picture of her at Los Feliz Forward.  Update: The site has been taken down.]

[Last post in a series.]

Previous posts:

• Third post: Elections and Appointments: How Much Democracy Is Too Little?
• Second post: Does Participation Increase as Democracy Gets Closer?
• First post: Neighborhood Councils Bring Direct Democracy Close to Home

The GGPNC has 19 seats; 10 council members are elected by stateholders – people who live, work, or own property in the council district.  The council appoints the remaining 9 council members.  No other neighborhood council appoints such a high percentage of its membership.  This has developed into the most visible and contentious issue in the council election.

The Los Feliz Ledger, which featured the October 2009 headline “GGPNC Re-Elects Itself,” has editorialized against the practice.  A slate of 10 candidates, with a webpage titled “Los Feliz Forward” and links from the Los Feliz Facebook page, has formed with the pledge to reform the council.

I am aware of this controversy only because of the coverage provided by the Los Feliz Ledger.  Until the evening of the candidate forum, I had never discussed the issue with any neighbors, nor heard it discussed.  Note that the Los Feliz Ledger is hardly impartial; the editor is clearly in the camp of the ‘reformers’ and critics of the reformers regard the newspaper’s coverage as representing the editor’s viewpoint.

The provision in the GGPNC bylaws specifying appointment of 9 of 19 members seeks to guarantee that each of five interest groups have at least one representative on the council.  The constituencies guaranteed representation by appointment are: business, religious, educational, recreational, and “non-residential or charitable.” The authors of the GGPNC bylaws were apparently concerned that without special appointments, these groups might otherwise lack representation on the council.

While assuring representation for every critical group in the community is well-intentioned, no other neighborhood council in the city has seen fit to carve out so many appointed slots in its bylaws.  One might also question why these five interest groups required special protection, while others went unprotected.  What about renters?  Or bicyclists?  And why 10 appointed seats to protect 5 special constituencies?

Critics suggest that in appointing 9 of 19 council members, the council has become a ‘self-perpetuating’ group.  This criticism focuses not just on the undemocratic structure of the council – with a bare majority of council members elected by neighborhood stakeholders, but also on actual council decisions in selecting representatives.  Disappointed candidates and others found reason to fault the council’s judgment.  Charges of cronyism surfaced on one side.  On the other side, critics were regarded as bringing discord and ill-feelings to the table.

The council’s critics set out to reform GGPNC and they appeared exceptionally well-prepared to compete in last Saturday’s election.

Election results will hinge on turnout.

[Editor’s note: I am on spring break this week; all posts were written on Saturday and scheduled to appear during my absence.  This is why I make no reference to the election results, which may be known by now.]

Next post: Reflections on the Candidate Forum and the Election Campaign

Previous posts:

• Second post: Does Participation Increase as Democracy Gets Closer?
• First post: Neighborhood Councils Bring Direct Democracy Close to Home

Neighborhood councils in Los Angeles are an attempt to bring direct democracy to our neighborhoods.  The Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council, as certified by the city, encompasses Los Feliz, including Griffith Park, Franklin Hills, and portions of East Hollywood and Silver Lake.  But if you compare the map of the Los Feliz Improvement Association (the neighborhood association, which had an analogous role to City-sanctioned councils for many years) with a map of GGPNC, there is a rough match.  GGPNC is mostly Los Feliz.

I have lived in Los Feliz for a dozen years in a charming house within walking distance of a host of shops on Vermont.  I’m near enough Griffith Park to run on the trails at least a couple of times a week.  (The run features wildflowers in bloom now.)  It’s an attractive neighborhood.

I have had an avid interest in politics since my early teenage years.  I have had many gigs in political campaigns stretching back more than three decades.  I enjoy reading and discussing politics, public policy, and political philosophy.  I write distant elected representatives to offer counsel on the decisions they make and I call local government staff to prompt action when I think it’s needed.

So, I am invested in my neighborhood and I am politically active.  Yet, although I have lived in the district since the GGPNC was formed, until last Thursday night, I had – with one exception (attending a meeting years ago to object, along with 200 of my neighbors, to a permit parking proposal) – no experience or interaction with the council.

Saturday I voted in a GGPNC election for the first time; the preceding Thursday I attended a candidate forum.

Although the Los Feliz Ledger (delivered on my front lawn every month) has provided coverage of issues related to the GGPNC, I know relatively little about how the council has functioned, what it has accomplished, or why my neighborhood may be better off because of it.

I believe most of my Los Feliz neighbors – 30,000 or so – are not much better informed about, nor more highly engaged with the GGPNC than I am.

Saturday evening (as I write) the Los Feliz Ledger predicted a turnout of 1,000 voters.  One observer I spoke with early Saturday afternoon offered an estimate of turnout (at that point) that would suggest a much higher number of participants – in the neighborhood of 1,500.

It is likely that the highly motivated, well-organized Los Feliz Forward slate succeeded in boosting participation.

[Editor’s note: I am on spring break this week; all posts were written on Saturday and scheduled to appear during my absence.]

Next post: Elections and Appointments: How Much Democracy Is Too Little?

Previous post: Neighborhood Councils Bring Direct Democracy Close to Home

The Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council (GGPNC) is one of 90 councils representing neighborhoods throughout the City of Los Angeles.  The plan to establish the councils, which operate under the auspices of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, was adopted in 2001 following adoption of a new city charter in 1999.  The councils bring direct democracy into nearly every neighborhood in the city.  (Westwood’s neighborhood council is the newest; a few neighborhoods are still unrepresented.)  The council system is designed to make city government more responsive to neighborhood concerns.  There are only 11 15 seats on the city council.  Since neighborhood councils are much smaller, there are far more opportunities for citizen participation, while the concerns of a distinctive neighborhood are more likely to receive attention.

Saturday, March 20 the Office of City Clerk held an election for 10 seats on the council (as well as elections in eight other neighborhood council districts).  All stakeholders in the district at least 13 years of age – yes, 13 – were eligible to vote.  This is an example of neighborhood autonomy.  Each neighborhood council drafts its own bylaws, which in the GGPNC permit 13 year old voters.

A stakeholder is anyone who lives, works, or owns property in the district (plus anyone else who can confirm a stake in the district).  GGPNC’s website places the district’s population at 37,000.  Based on demographic information and a number of conservative assumptions, well over 30,000 residents were eligible to vote, plus an unknown number of additional stakeholders. (Unlike most local, state, or federal elections, stakeholders need not be registered voters to participate in a neighborhood council election.)

The City Clerk will begin counting ballots on Monday and release official figures within a week.

This is the first in a brief series of posts offering impressions of the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council from the perspective of a low-information resident (myself) who participated as a voting stakeholder for the first time since the council was formed.

[Editor’s note: I am on spring break this week; all posts were written on Saturday and scheduled to appear during my absence.]

Next post: Does Participation Increase as Democracy Gets Closer?

I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.
He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.  … I think people just tapped into — he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.
I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times.
I think we are in one of those times right now …
– Barack Obama to the Reno Gazette-Journal on January 14, 2008; text from link at the New York Times.

Win or lose, Obama has pursued health care reform as tenaciously as any president has pursued any domestic initiative in decades. Health care has now been his presidency’s central domestic focus for a full year. That’s about as long as it took to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, originally introduced by John F. Kennedy and driven home by Lyndon Johnson. Rarely since World War II has a president devoted so much time, at so much political cost, to shouldering a single priority through Congress. It’s reasonable to debate whether Obama should have invested so heavily in health care. But it’s difficult to quibble with Emanuel’s assessment that once the president placed that bet, “He has shown fortitude, stamina, and strength.”
The fight has opened a second window into Obama. The key here is his 2008 campaign assertion that “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America” more than Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton did. The health care struggle suggests that Obama views changing that trajectory as the ultimate measure of a presidency’s success. His aim is to establish a long-term political direction — one centered on a more activist government that shapes and polices the market to strengthen the foundation for sustainable, broadly shared growth. Everything else — the legislative tactics, even most individual policies — is negotiable. He wants to chart the course for the supertanker, not to steer it around each wave or decide which crates are loaded into its hull.
– Ronald Brownstein, “Obama And The Supertanker: The Constant in Obama’s Presidency has been His Determination to Chart a New Course,” National Journal, Saturday, March 20, 2010.

(Image from YouTube video of interview with Reno Gazette-Journal.)

This nation time and time again has chosen to extend its promise to more of its people.
…
So previous generations, those that came before us, made the decision that seniors and our poor … should not be forced to go without health care just because they couldn’t afford it.
Today it falls to this generation to decide whether we will make that same promise to hardworking middle class families and small businesses all across America and to young Americans like yourselves, who are just starting out.
…
I don’t know how passing health care will play politically, but I know it’s right.
–President Barack Obama, George Mason University, March 19, 2010

Two stories in the print edition of yesterday’s Los Angeles Times illustrated the dire need for health care reform.  The first was on the front page above the fold, featuring the day’s largest headline, “24% in state lack health insurance.”  Duke Helfand reported on a study by UCLA’s Center for Health Policy Research, which found that 24.3% of Californians below the age of 65 were uninsured – an increase (from 2 years previously) because so many Californians lost health care coverage when they lost their jobs.  (Folks 65 and older, of course, are covered by socialized insurance: Medicare.)

“The shocking increase in people losing insurance spotlights the problem that . . . coverage may not be there for us when we need it,” the article quotes Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California.

Shocking or not, the story reported on anticipated cutbacks by the State of California in funding health insurance programs for 2.5 million low-income children.

A second story, “Jury tells Anthem to cover surgery,” reported by Lisa Girion, appeared on the first page of the LATExtra section of the paper.  A Blue Cross customer, Ephram Nehme, had been approved by the company for a liver transplant, but he became gravely ill as he lingered on the waiting list at UCLA Medical Center.  Mr. Nehme decided – at the urging of his physician – to have the operation in Indiana, where the lists were shorter, but Anthem refused to pay for an out of state procedure.  He was able to have the life-saving surgery only because he could afford – out of pocket – the $200,000-plus cost of the procedure.

So even if we have insurance, “coverage may not be there when we need it.”  The jury, in this case, ruled against Anthem: deciding that Blue Cross must pay both Mr. Nehme’s medical expenses and his legal expenses.  But how secure should the 75.7% of Californians with insurance feel about our coverage should illness strike?  Anthem Blue Cross, by the way, is the state’s largest health insurer.

(Image of Xavier Becerra and Diane Watson, both of whom will vote on the health care bill this week in the House of Representatives, at a health care rally last October.)

[Update: edited for clarity.]

“If we don’t pass the bill, how do we explain that to the American people?”  asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “We as Democrats with two Houses and the White House could not make this historic decision to go forward?”

Ht: Greg Sargent who links to two health care policy wonks, Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn, on the esoteric “deem and pass” legislative strategy the Speaker intends to follow.  (This is really inside baseball: even more esoteric than the Senate’s filibuster rules.)

Update: Marc Ambinder takes a closer look at the “deeming” strategy this morning at the Atlantic; he says it is a venerable procedure, consistent with the rules of the House and (contrary to the editorial writers of the Wall St. Journal) with the Constitution.

(Image of Nancy Pelosi at the recent bipartisan health care summit making a fist to make a point.  She should keep that fist clenched until she has rounded up enough Democrats to pass the bill – or deem the bill passed.)