LA Philanthropy Watch

The first page of the LATExtra section of this morning’s Los Angeles Times reported the killings of two workers at medical marijuana dispensaries five miles apart on the same afternoon.  [“2 pot shop killings probed” by Joel Rubin and Paloma Esquivel, June 26, 2010]  The Higher Path Holistic Care Collective (see photo) is on Sunset Boulevard in Echo Park; Hollywood Holistic 2 is below Hollywood Boulevard, just west of Gower.

“The killings rattled medical marijuana collective operators and patient advocates,” according to the story, which highlights the breadth of the nonprofit community in Los Angeles: California law permits nonprofit collectives to raise and distribute medical marijuana.  (Among the more than 400 illegally operating marijuana dispensaries in the City of Los Angeles, many are not nonprofit operations, while few are collectives that distribute marijuana to members who have grown it.  They are retail outlets in a marketplace that, until recently, has been saturated – much to the displeasure of many neighborhoods.)

The story illustrates, as well, special challenges faced by organizations within this nonprofit niche.  ‘Pot shops,’ as the Times’ article puts it, operate with large amounts of cash – making them an attractive target for robbery.  But Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca suggested an even scarier possibility.  Noting that armed robbery differs from “assassinating the person you’re robbing,” he said that the vicious nature of killings suggested that drug cartels could be involved in the violence.

Note: both these homicides occurred in the City of Los Angeles, which is outside the Sheriff’s jurisdiction.

(Photo of Higher Path Holistic Care Collective on Saturday morning.)

Last week I commented on a report in the Los Angeles Times about an appellate court ruling in a challenge to the City’s right to regulate billboards (”City of Los Angeles Wins a Battle Against Billboard Companies“).  Now the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight has a post up, “World Wide Rush Ruling: Game Over for Rogue Sign Companies?“, which consists of a Q&A about the ruling.

The last question is, “Can we now expect an end to the flood of lawsuits challenging the city’s sign ban?“  And the response:

“Kim Wardlaw, the 9^th Circuit judge who authored the World Wide Rush ruling, departed from the usual legalese in her introduction to make some observations about the signage wars, including the fact that one of the earliest rulings upholding a city’s right to control and regulate billboard advertising was by the Missouri Supreme Court in 1911.  Now, 99 years later, the courts are still hearing challenges to this right.  The moral:  Never underestimate the litigious tenacity of the outdoor advertising industry.”

(Image of Skytag supergraphic on high-rise in Westwood.  Here’s a link at the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight website to a story about this particular sign.)

David Zahnizer reports in this morning’s Los Angeles Times that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has turned away a constitutional challenge to the city’s ban on supergraphics (”Appeals court sides with L.A. in fight against billboards and supegraphics“).

“We absolutely will seek the removal of all of those signs that have no permits,” according to a deputy of City Attorney Carmen Trutanich quoted in the article.

No word yet on the ruling (which may be a temporary victory, since the City Council is poised to consider approving as many as 21 billboard districts across the city) from the activists at the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight.

For the editorial view of LA Philanthropy Watch on the billboards cluttering our landscape, see “Ways of Seeing in a World Dedicated to Sales and Marketing.”  For additional background on CBBB, see “Vision of Nonprofit Advocates: World Without Billboard Blight.”

The folks at the California Participation Project (featured in an enthusiastic November 11, 2009 post, “Project to Expand Role of Nonprofits in Promoting Civic Participation,” and in “Quote of the Day…On Nonprofit Organizations“) have a number of links to help California voters prepare for the upcoming election, including:

2010 Voter Information Guide, which features information about registering to vote, finding your polling place, sample ballots, election dates and much more,

and, for those of you who feel a greater responsibility than I do to vote for every down-ballot item (such as all the judicial elections):

Meet and Learn about Judicial Candidates, offers information about a May 20 forum (sponsored by Southwestern School of Law and the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County – and featuring the Honorable Judith McConnell and KCET’s Val Zavala) to meet the 21 candidates running for 6 Superior Court seats in Los Angeles County.  The event is  free, but registration – by May 17 – is required.

Last summer, LA Philanthropy Watch featured a post about an announcement – in a July 28 memo to LACMA staff – that the museum would discontinue the classic film program (“Weekend at the Movies to End Run at LACMA,” July 29, 2009).  I followed up with a number of posts highlighting the efforts of Save Film at LACMA, a grassroots organization that sprung up to campaign on behalf of the film program and which – when interim funding came through from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and Ovation TV – succeeded in winning a one-year reprieve for the endangered program.

Now, after a 6-month hiatus at the Save Film at LACMA blog, co-founders Debra Levine and Doug Cummings weigh in again (“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”).  While their assessment reveals some encouraging developments, the status quo still looks “dismally the same.”

The past year has seen increasing attendance (and a number of sold-out performances) for the classic film program, the successful launch of a Film Club (which has generated modest revenues), and a welcome spill-over effect, with a revival of repertory film programs across Los Angeles.

Museum Director Michael Govan has expressed support for film, pledged to raise funds to endow the program, and – according to a LACMA spokesperson – has a “lot of ‘asks’ out.”

Clint Eastwood and Martin Scorsese have publicly embraced the campaign, while the museum has added a number of Trustees affiliated with the entertainment industry.

Yet no one has stepped up to pledge a major gift to ensure a stable, permanent source of funding.  In fact, continuation of the program beyond June 30, 2010 appears to be in doubt.  Ms. Levine and Mr. Cummings suggest that the film program is “still a begging orphan … on a shoestring budget.”  Their complaint that the program has not been “integrated into the Museum panoply,” carries the suggestion that at LACMA film is still simply not regarded as fine art.

Readers interested in following the ongoing drama can do so at Save Film at LACMA or at the group’s Facebook page, which currently lists 4,953 fans.

Facebook has been an essential element of the group’s grassroots campaign, as described by Debra Levine’s feature at LA Philanthropy Watch, “(Not) The Last Picture Show or Good Writing Wins the Day for Save Film at LACMA,” which provided an insider’s account.

A vintage video appeal can be found here: Save Film @ LACMA.

On March 2, 2010, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy released a report titled, “Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in Los Angeles County.”  The report, written by Lisa Ranghelli and Julia Craig, begins with a question, “When foundations and other institutional grantmakers invest in policy advocacy, community organizing and civic engagement by nonprofit organizations, does it make a difference for local residents?”

NCRP researchers studied the activities and accomplishments of 15 community nonprofits in Los Angeles County.  These activities – advocacy, organizing, and civic engagement -  were supported by $75.5 million in funding; foundations provided more than three-quarters ($58 million) of this support.  The NCRP report documented the successes: policy changes resulting from efforts undertaken during the five years from 2004 through 2008.  Whenever possible, the NCRP report put a dollar value on those successes.  When affordable housing units are built or the minimum wage increases, for instance, benefits can be quantified.  How effective were these efforts?

Among the findings of the report:

• the aggregate dollar value (where it could be measured) of benefits conferred on the community was $6.88 billion;
• for every dollar of philanthropic funding received, $91 of benefits resulted; and
• non-monetary benefits included cleaner air, improved working conditions, and increased access to college prep classes, among others.

Increasing civic engagement and political participation gave people a voice.  Through that voice, they succeeded in influencing public policy outcomes.

NCRP, which bills itself as “an independent watchdog of foundations,” seeks greater openness, accountability and responsiveness by foundations.  For NCRP, public policy and advocacy are central to helping people in marginalized communities – with little visibility and less influence.  Organizing in their communities, becoming participants in the political process, advocating for policy changes that will make a difference over the long term are effective avenues to change.  Aaron Dorfman, executive director of NCRP, expressed the hope that foundations would consider devoting at least 25% of their grant dollars to efforts to bring about change through political and civic engagement (“Getting back more from giving,” by Alexandra Zavis, Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2010).

“Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities,” which essentially puts politics – active engagement in the political process – front and center, is the fourth report in a series from the Grantmaking for Community Impact Project.  The previous reports looked at community organizing, advocacy, and civic participation in New Mexico (December 2008), North Carolina (May 2009), and Minnesota (September 2009).

I’ll have more on the report in future posts.

When I discovered the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight several weeks ago, I recalled John Berger’s Ways of Seeing (published in 1972, though I didn’t read it until the late ’70s or early ’80s).

I could remember little of the book, except for the author’s observation about the saturation of commercial advertising in contemporary society: while ubiquitous in our culture, it was unknown in previous times.

Chapter 7 opens with these words:

“In the cities in which we live, all of us see hundreds of publicity images every day of our lives.  No other kind of image confronts us so frequently.

In no other form of society in history has there been such a concentration of images, such a density of visual messages.”

I drive through West Hollywood on Sunset Boulevard nearly every day – past billboard after billboard towering overhead, supergraphics draped around buildings, and a digital billboard that cycles through a repertoire of fleeting commercials.  Let’s grant that this garish homage to commercialism may have a place.  The Strip has more in common, after all, with Las Vegas or Times Square, than with my Los Feliz neighborhood.

But, with the activists at the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight and Scenic America, I hope we can preserve and restore the better part of our natural world and the neighborhoods we live, work, and play in – as well as most of the streets we traverse (if not Sunset in West Hollywood) – from the pervasive presence of commercial images and messages.

If West Hollywood wishes the Sunset Strip to be a showcase of commercial billboards, so be it. But this represents a social choice, not an immutable law of nature, or a constitutional right of outdoor advertising companies.  That choice is what’s at issue in the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight’s campaign to reclaim our public spaces.

(Image of a pair of billboards towering over Sunset Boulevard in the heart of West Hollywood.)

Two weeks ago I spoke briefly with Ted Wu, founder of the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight, which seeks “to protect citizens’ rights to walk and drive their streets and congregate in public areas without a constant assault of advertising messages.”

He was astonished – and elated – at how aggressively the new Los Angeles City Attorney, Carmen Trutanich, has pursued lawbreakers.  This represents a huge change in city policy since the departure of the previous city attorney.

“Our jaw is on the floor,” he said of the activists at CBBB. “We’re just hoping for the best.”

I asked him, based on my perusal of CBBB’s website and its links to other websites, whether the organization’s agenda wasn’t more radical than elimination of illegal billboards and supergraphics.  Wouldn’t he like to be rid of all outdoor advertising?

“Wishful thinking,” he replied, noting the reality that he is up against.  “I started this in 1972.”

That’s a long time to pursue what might be regarded as a quixotic quest.  While there have been victories here and there, the assault of outdoor advertising has been unrelenting over the past four decades.  Putting the brakes on the proliferation of billboards invading our visual landscape is a tall order.  Scaling back on the number of billboards is even more daunting.

“If you went through what I went through –” he mused, “It’s a miracle that we arrived where we are today in 2010.”

Mr. Wu mentioned a Massachusetts court ruling in the ’30s that made reference to the “molestation of drivers” by billboards cluttering the landscape.  That sensibility – which from a 21^st century perspective may seem quaint – is evident in a quotation from the mid-twentieth century by William F. Buckley, who surely recalled an era when bucolic scenes along our nation’s highways were relatively uncluttered with commercial advertising:

“As such the billboards are acts of aggression…against which the public is entitled, as a matter of privacy, to be protected. If a homeowner desires to construct a huge Coca-Cola sign facing his own homestead rather than the public highway, in order to remind him, every time he looks out his window, that the time has come to pause and be refreshed, he certainly should be left free to do so. But if he wants to face the sign toward us, that is something else…”  (“The Politics of Beauty,” Esquire, July 1966.)

The quote is featured at Scenic America, a national organization headquartered in Washington, DC, and an ally of the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight.

Previous posts:

• Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight Sees Dawn of a New Day (on a surprising victory against illegal supergraphics)
• Nonprofit Battles Out of Control Billboards in Los Angeles (”Insider” video interview with CBBB’s president)
• Q. & A. with Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight (LA Philanthropy Watch featured interview)

(The image is a photo taken at LA Live. )

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.

The headline and subhead (in a story by Janet Hook and Noam N. Levey) in this morning’s print edition of the Los Angeles Times: “It’s now up to Obama, Pelosi: The healthcare overhaul may rest on his leadership and her power of persuasion.”  That sounds right.

As the President has begun to campaign on behalf of health care reform, and the legislation is under threat from both the left and right flanks of Congressional Democrats, a number of progressive commentators have begun to rally ’round the reform flag.

Last Friday at TPM Café Theda Skocpol (Harvard sociologist and political scientist, whose scholarly focus has included the nonprofit and voluntary sector) called on Democrats of all stripes to get on board with health care reform while the window of opportunity to pass it is still open.

“At the risk of irritating people on the left, this is NOT the moment for ‘progressives’ to demand a public option. Nor is it the moment for either pro-choice feminists or pro-life Democrats to derail reform.”

I emphatically agree with her that there is a critical need now to turn attention to getting the job done (and that her abrasive tone will irritate).

At Mother Jones Kevin Drum links to Dr. Skocpol and suggests, “The current bill isn’t perfect, but the combination of community rating at the national level with an individual mandate is likely to be the beginning of the end for private health insurance as we know it.”

At The New Republic Jonathan Chait thinks we’re suffering from myopia about the historical nature of this legislation. He objects to Jane Hamsher on the left, John McCain on the right, and the editorial board of the Washington Post in the middle. “It’s natural to focus on improving a piece of legislation whose details remain in flux. The problem comes when the desire to improve becomes the sole focus for evaluating it. Nearly any of the great political advances in American history, viewed from ground level, looked like a pastiche of grubby compromises and half measures. At some point the imperative is to take the broader view.”  [Editor's note: typo corrected.]

At Think Progress Matt Yglesias notes that (FireDogLake aside) the left is solidly on board with reform: MoveOn.org, SEIU, AFSME, the NAACP, LLUAC, and the liberal columnists at both the New York Times and Washington Post have all endorsed passage of the legislation.

As President Obama campaigns – with an eye on wavering Members of Congress, can Speaker Pelosi round up the votes in the House?  We’ll know soon.

(Image from February rally for health care reform in front of Los Angeles offices of Anthem Blue Cross.)