LA Philanthropy Watch

A January 27, 2002 editorial in the Los Angeles Times – “Blight with deep pockets” – began, “It shouldn’t be so hard to stop the mad–often illegal–rush to put billboards on every available corner in Los Angeles.”

It shouldn’t be so hard, perhaps – but more than eight years later, it is difficult to ward off cynicism at the feckless attempts of the City Council to regulate billboards, from supergraphics to modest eyesores.  The billboard companies and individual developers with huge buildings have waged a two-pronged battle against any vestige of regulation – or taxation – of outdoor advertising.  It has been Gucci Gulch on the one hand: with campaign dollars, lobbyists, and first amendment attorneys.  And on the other hand: a brazen contempt for the law.

In this context, the installation of an illegal 8-story supergraphic wrapped around a building on Hollywood and Highland just up the street from the Kodak Theatre – where the ad would be visible on television broadcasts when red carpet interviews take place at the Academy Awards next week – is hardly newsworthy.  Since the going rate for a supergraphic is said to be in the neighborhood of $100,000 a month, one can understand why the owner of the building would ignore warnings by email and letter – and even a cease-and-desist order – urging him not to erect an unpermitted sign.  (“Businessman held on $1 million bail in supergraphic case” by David Zahniser, February 28, 2010)

Enter our City Attorney, Carmen Trutanich (who seems, near the beginning of his first term in public office, to be more comfortable wielding a meat cleaver than a scalpel).  He made news when he had Kayvan Setareh, the Pacific Palisades businessman who owns the building in question, arrested and jailed – on $1 million bail.

Tim Rutten, writing in this morning’s LA Times (“Bunning and Trutanich – bullies in high place”), believes our city attorney has “anger management issues.”  Dennis Hathaway, of the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight, takes a different view, suggesting that this heralds “the dawn of a new day.”

I hope to do a follow-up story on the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight, “a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization representing groups and individuals committed to defending the urban landscape of Los Angeles against billboards and other forms of outdoor advertising that blight our public spaces.”

(David Zahniser reported in Tuesday’s Times that Mr. Setareh had agreed to take down the sign; CBBB’s website reported last night that the sign was coming down.  The image is of a photo taken Monday.)

Scroll down for a brief Q & A with the Trust for Public Land

A group of Chicago investors who purchased in 2002 a 138-acre parcel (west of the Hollywood sign) known as the Cahuenga Peak, recently announced their intention to subdivide the property into five sites for luxury homes and offer the lots for sale.  This plan was met with consternation.  In response,

“…city leaders and preservationists outlined what they describe as a last-ditch plan to purchase the peak and prevent its development by making it part of Griffith Park.
Officials of the Trust for Public Land have negotiated to purchase the mountaintop for $11.7 million. They have raised about half of that but must come up with the rest of the cash by April 14, they said.”  (“Land trust solicits funding to buy peak near Hollywood sign,” by Bob Pool, Los Angeles Times, February 10, 2010)

When I saw this article about the Save the Peak campaign two weeks ago, it raised questions in my mind about whether – if the campaign is successful – the city, confronting a fiscal crisis some years from now, might decide to sell the property, or to develop it to earn revenue.  (Yes, this sad scenario – featuring the short-sighted decision of a future mayor and city council – was the first thing that came to mind.  Fortunately, the past experience of Trust for Public Land suggests that such foolishness is highly unlikely.)

In an email exchange, I sent a handful of questions (interspersed with comments so the context was clear) to Tim Ahern, Director of Media Relations at the Trust for Public Land, about the campaign and he responded with the answers.  Here is the Q & A:

Q. Several media accounts say the Trust for Public Land intends (after raising the money and purchasing the land) to deed the land to the City of Los Angeles for Griffith Park.  I see nothing on your site that says this is your objective.  Is this correct?

A. Yes, we will deed the land to the city to be added to Griffith Park.  Our intention has always been that the land be added to the park.

Q. I assume the Trust for Public Land has done this sort of thing many times.  Can you offer examples – preferably an example of something similar in scale and a second example of something in or near Los Angeles?

A. We have done literally thousands of projects around the country since we were created in 1972.  For details on our work in Los Angeles, go to our website – www.tpl.org, click on the “where we work” button, and go to California.  There are details there.

Q. Is the land usually given to a public / government entity – city, state, park district, federal government?  Do you ever deed the land to other nonprofits?  Do you ever retain the deed?

A. Yes, our land usually goes to government, or public entities.  We have no wish or desire to retain land ourself.  In a few instances, the land goes to other non-profits, but that is rare.

Q. Do you place restrictions on the deeds when you turn land over to another entity?  If so, how does that work?

The governor has proposed selling many state assets – including the Orange County Fairgrounds and, I believe, the LA Coliseum (which may be owned jointly with Los Angels County).  The mayor of Los Angeles has proposed selling a bunch of city-owned real estate – though perhaps no parks.

A. It is our intention that the Cahuenga Peak property be preserved.  We don’t place restrictions on the lands, but I cannot find examples in our history of where we bought land, turned it over to a public agency, and it was then sold for development.

Q. What’s to keep the city from turning around and selling the Cahuenga Peak when the next fiscal crisis hits?

A. I think there would be a great outcry from the local citizens if the city were to propose selling off Griffith Park land.

Q. There have been proposals in recent years to develop Griffith Park more heavily with the goal of earning revenue for the city.  The plans (set aside for the time being) were designed to make Griffith Park “a destination” – like Disneyland or the Hollywood & Highland commercial center (where the Kodak Theater is located, just up the street from Grauman’s Chinese Theater and other attractions).

What’s to keep the city from constructing a restaurant, hotel, or even a theme park on the peak in the future?

A. Again, those issues are up to the city of Los Angeles to resolve.  The specific use of the land will be determined by the Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Department.

Q. How is the campaign going at this stage?

A. We’re optimistic.  We need $12.5 million by April 14, and so far, we’re at about $8 million, so we’re about two-thirds of the way home.  People who want to help can visit www.savehollywoodland.org, to contribute.

Editor’s note: To publicize the campaign, TPL and Tom LaBonge, my city councilman, teamed up to cover the Hollywood sign (for a week) on February 11 with a ‘Save the Peak’ banner (as pictured).

In advance of Thursday’s heralded bipartisan summit on health care, the White House has released the President’s plan to merge the House and Senate health care reform bills – making a renewed push to transform the country’s health care / health insurance system.

A new White House website, ‘Putting Americans in Control of Their Health Care,’ has links to a summary of the plan, Republican ideas in the plan, a page where Americans can ask their own questions about health care reform, and (for hard-core wonks) a link to the actual 11-page proposal [pdf] released this morning.

If the summit fails to convince Republicans to help Mr. Obama and the Democrats pass health care legislation, then it will be up to the majority party in the House and the Senate to act like a majority and pass the bill.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn frames the challenge in these words: “Will Democrats, particularly in the House, get past their fear and vote for the bill? Really that’s what the summit is all about–convincing nervous Democrats that the Republicans really aren’t interested in compromise and that health care reform, despite the poll numbers, is still a good idea.”

Ezra Klein’s take at his Washington Post blog is: “The election of Scott Brown threw the politics of the issue back into chaos, and unlike in past instances, left the process uncertain as well. But Democrats have spent the past few weeks rebuilding the process, and today was the first step: The press will now spend a few days covering the plan itself, rather than just the politics of the issue. Then comes Thursday’s summit, and if all goes well there, Harry Reid says that the Senate will use the reconciliation process to make a few tweaks and changes and, alongside the House, finish this bill.

That, of course, is the real plan: finish the bill.”

Igor Volsky at the Wonk Room has a rundown – including a chart – on how the President’s plan bridges the differences between the House and Senate bills.

Finally, Health Care for America Now, which has led the effort to rally Americans in support of health care reform, features Jason Rosenbaum’s observations at the NOW! Blog:

“Perhaps more significant than the proposal this morning was Pfeiffer’s comments on the strategy for passing the President’s plan:

• The President expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health reform. The proposal was designed to ensure we can get that if the opposition decides they will filibuster health reform.”

(Image is a screen grab from a video of Obama’s Weekly Address.)

On January 13, 2010, a news release / statement from Amy Schur – with the headline, “California Chapter Splits from National ACORN to Form New Group” – announced the formation of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.

Amy Schur, the new organization’s Executive Director, had been the lead organizer of California ACORN – the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – and had spent 21 years working for ACORN in a number of cities, including Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, San Jose and, most recently, Los Angeles.

The news release praised ACORN’s accomplishments on behalf of working families in California and the new leadership of ACORN nationally, but observed that recent controversies that have engulfed the national organization threatened to jeopardize the effectiveness of the group’s grassroots organizing throughout California.

The California group had been a chapter of ACORN, a national organization.  “Until now, governance and financial management resided at the national level. In recent months it has become increasingly clear to the leadership, staff and members in California that the serious challenges ACORN is facing are jeopardizing the important work we are doing here in California.”

While the statement acknowledged missteps by ACORN, there was more emphasis on unfounded, malicious political attacks.  The decision to step away was clearly pragmatic – based on a clear-eyed assessment of how to sustain the level of effectiveness of the group’s community organizing activities throughout California.

“We, the California leadership, staff and members who have been working with ACORN, believe that ACORN, both locally and nationally, has been a tremendous force advancing the interests of low-income and working families in this country. At the same time, very real internal mistakes have been made and vicious politically motivated attacks have led to right-wing activists digging through our trash and editing undercover videos to tell a lie so malicious that, if it were true, would upset any citizen.”
…
“Nevertheless, those of us who have been working with ACORN in California believe that we can’t wait any longer to be in full control over our destiny. The leadership and staff that were working with ACORN in California made the decision to break off from ACORN and launch a new organization here in California called Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE).  The organization will work to advance the mission of organizing and empowering low-income communities, and launch a statewide, multi-year campaign to win key policy changes that will break the cycle of continuous fiscal crisis in the state of California and cuts that hurt ordinary people and their communities.”

I sat down this week with Amy Schur at the Los Angeles office of ACCE (which formerly housed California ACORN) to discuss the launch of the new organization.  The interview focused on a number of issues related to the decision to found ACCE (pronounced like the playing card, ‘ās’).

We discussed the former relationship of California ACORN with the national group, recent ACORN controversies – which Ms. Schur described as “Three strikes,” her career with ACORN, and the challenges she, the staff, and volunteers of the new organization face in establishing ACCE on a firm footing.

Over the next two weeks, I will present a series of posts on the national organization ACORN, including three controversies that have engulfed the group, a brief assessment of ACORN’s accomplishments, and a final post with comments on the independent report commissioned by ACORN.  Then, I will turn again to ACCE, with a second series of posts on the decision to break away from the national organization and a sketch of the challenges going forward with the new group.

(Update: I have revised the paragraph immediately above to reflect the direction the series has taken.)

Next post in a 7-part series on ACORN: Three Strikes: A Mighty Grassroots Group Goes Down Swinging.

Next post in the series on ACCE: The Birth of ACCE: First Post in a New Series.

(Image from Wallpapers-Free.)

Last night, in the State of the Union address, the President said this about health care reform:

Now, let’s clear a few things up.  (Laughter.)  I didn’t choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt.  And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn’t take on health care because it was good politics.  (Laughter.)  I took on health care because of the stories I’ve heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who’ve been denied coverage; families –- even those with insurance -– who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying — Democratic administrations, Republican administrations — we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans.  The approach we’ve taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry.  It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market.  It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.

And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. (Applause.)  Thank you.  She gets embarrassed.  (Laughter.)

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan.  It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses.  And according to the Congressional Budget Office -– the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress –- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.  (Applause.)

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became.  I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.  And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, “What’s in it for me?”

But I also know this problem is not going away.  By the time I’m finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance.  Millions will lose it this year.  Our deficit will grow.  Premiums will go up.  Patients will be denied the care they need.  Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether.  I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber.  (Applause.)

So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed.  There’s a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo.  But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.  (Applause.)  Let me know.  Let me know.  (Applause.)  I’m eager to see it.

Here’s what I ask Congress, though:  Don’t walk away from reform.  Not now.  Not when we are so close.  Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.  (Applause.)  Let’s get it done.  Let’s get it done.  (Applause.)

Sunday’s Los Angeles Times featured the obituary of Bessie Mae Berger, a 97-year old woman featured in a Times‘ story by Bob Pool (”Woman, 97, has a front seat to homelessness“) last fall.   The story, on page one of paper, reported that Mrs. Berger was living in a Chevy Suburban on the streets of Venice with her two sons.  Four days later, a follow-up story (”Nonprofit group comes to homeless family’s aid“), also by Pool, reported that a Los Angeles nonprofit, the Integrated Recovery Network, had come to the family’s rescue: finding a place to live for Mrs. Berger and her sons.

Pool’s obituary reports that, in addition to the efforts of government officials – at the city, county, and state level – and the Integrated Recovery Network (a project of Community Partners), hundreds of readers made donations to assist the family, and a benefit was staged on their behalf at the Laugh Factory.

LA Philanthropy Watch posted on the LA Times‘ stories in October and on the Laugh Factory benefit in November.

LA Gang Tours was founded by Alfred Lomas (former South Central gang member and current director of the Dream Center’s mobile food ministry) “to provide an unforgettable historical experience for our customers with a customized high-end specialty tour.”

LA Gang Tours pledges “to use the profits from the tours to create jobs and provide opportunities for the residents of South Central.” 

On December 5, LA Philanthropy Watch featured a post on LA Gang Tours (and a comparison with the Magic Bus Tours in Amsterdam in the early ’70s).

Erin Aubry Kaplan weighed in on LA Gang Tours in a January 7 op-ed (”L.A. Gang Tours: Just ghettotainment?“) in the Los Angeles Times.  She compares them with the Bankers Bus Tours conducted by Operation Hope in the early ’90s. I will make no attempt to try to summarize her commentary, but she is doubtful about the wisdom of the enterprise.

“Fifteen years later, another South Central tour with ostensibly the same goal of community investment will begin rolling out Jan. 16. But L.A. Gang Tours has a radically different approach. Far from trying to balance a grim picture, founder Alfred Lomas is offering the grim picture itself as the main attraction.”

Last weekend, Randal C. Archibold of the New York Times was on board during the inaugural tour (“On Los Angeles Bus Tour, an Insider View of Gang Life”).

“Mr. Lomas’s sometimes humorous, sometimes somber commentary highlighted a dozen locales that played a prominent role in the formation of the city’s street gangs — or had some criminal notoriety. They included the Los Angeles County jail; a mostly dry concrete riverbed favored by graffiti taggers; and the sheriff’s station used by the National Guard as a staging post during the 1965 Watts riots.”

Tours – at $65 a ticket, lunch included – are planned monthly.

(The image is a screen grab from Bus slogan generator.)

Well, actually the headline of the day:

Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate

From the Village Voice via Talking Points Memo.

(Image of Scott Brown from a screen grab of “Momentum,” a Brown TV ad 0n YouTube.)

Without comment:

“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform. Because I do not think that the country would be well served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the senate rule which means that 59 are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of this process.” — Barney Frank

Statement from Congressman Barney Frank, following Republican Scott Brown’s victory in the race to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy, read last night by Rachel Maddow.  Via Talking Points Memo.

(Photo of Barney Frank via Wikimedia Commons.)