“Thinking to myself: What are we, eight months into the ACORN story and the mainstream media is still telling me that those videos aren’t enough evidence?”

Andrew Breitbart, at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference on April 9, 2010, muses about racism, racial epithets, and the burden of proof. His meditations lead him to comment on ACORN and the undercover videos (introduced at his Big Government website) that successfully bamboozled the mainstream media. Mr. Breitbart, who lives in Los Angeles, takes no note of the California Attorney General’s report, released a week earlier, which offers evidence debunking the right-wing narrative about ACORN that Big Government created.

Rachel Maddow’s April 6 video takedown of this narrative – Context, Lies, and Videotape – provides a useful counterpoint.

See also, “The Undercover Videos: Final Nails in ACORN’s Coffin?” Ht: Talking Points Memo.

During the past several months, coverage at LA Philanthropy Watch has increasingly focused on issues related to advocacy, civic engagement, and political participation – and decreasingly on the nonprofit sector more generally.

Civic Intersection will focus on the region where nonprofit and voluntary organizations (mostly in Los Angeles) are connected with the public sector through the political process.   The new blog will continue to provide coverage of the issues and themes that have been familiar to readers of LA Philanthropy Watch in recent months – including reports on the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council.  Except the links and comments will appear at Civic Intersection – a new and improved blog.  I haven’t just changed the name – there will be a number of new features as well.

Check it out.

…Nearly 46 percent of the country’s 14.6 million unemployed people have been out of work for more than six months, and forecasters project that the situation will not improve anytime soon. Currently, the Labor Department says there are nearly five unemployed people for every job opening.”  (”No extension of unemployment benefits in sight for the long-term jobless,” by Michael A. Fletcher, Washington Post, July 13, 2010)

“That doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work. I’m sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it, but you can’t argue that it’s a job enhancer. If anything, as I said, it’s a disincentive.”

Quoted on All Things Considered, “The Controversy Over Extending Job Benefits,” July 12, 2010.  ATC host Robert Siegel asked Harvard economics professor Ken Rogoff, a conservative economist who advised the McCain campaign in 2008, for his response.

“Well, there’s certainly a truth to it, and many people believe that’s why Europe, with much more generous benefits, has higher unemployment. But today, we’re in a once-every-50-years, once-every-75-years recession. There just aren’t a lot of jobs.

And it’s hard to believe that that’s really what’s holding people back from getting them, that they can collect a modest unemployment check.”

Kevin Drum is one of many commentators who have noted that the obstruction of the majority party – 60 votes are needed to pass legislation in the 100-member Senate – is good politics for Republicans, since it is viewed by swing voters as a failure of Congress.

“Ben Nelson aside, there’s not much question which party is holding up unemployment benefits. You know it, I know it, reporters know it, and political junkies of all stripes know it. But lots of people don’t. They see a headline that says “Congress Adjourns Without Acting on Unemployment” and they don’t read much further. Every time that happens, it’s a big win for the GOP. And it happens a lot.”  (”The Political Passive Voice,” at Mother Jones, July 5, 2010)

(Photograph from Senator Kyl’s website.)

“Before she can revive a coherent vision for the city and its neighborhoods, she has to make Angelenos aware that such a thing exists. At the same time, she’ll have to reinvigorate a Planning Department that, by general perception and according to a performance audit by City Controller Laura Chick, is stuck in a rut. Instead of crafting better frameworks for whole neighborhoods, much less the whole city, it slowly judges individual building projects. The department employs scores of smart people but doesn’t encourage big thoughts or build paths for advancement.” (“Planning for success,” Editorial, January 12, 2006)

In her letter of resignation on June 30 (available here courtesy of City Watch), she writes, “… I have long been ready for retirement and new adventures.”  Her letter celebrates four initiatives introduced in the last 4 ½ years:

• Our first initiative, “Do Real Planning,” resulted in an aggressive community planning program. …
• Our second initiative, “Build an Efficient and Effective Department,” has resulted in significant process changes that are the impetus for the major department reorganization that is currently underway. …
• Our third initiative, “Develop Innovative Solutions,” resulted in neighborhood pilot parking programs and creative policies and regulations to facilitate downtown development. …
• Our fourth initiative, “Engage the Public,” created meaningful interaction with all of our planning constituencies, including the development community and neighborhoods. …

Many neighborhood activists have appreciated these strides, which have marked a sea change in Los Angeles.  The members of the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council Planning, Zoning & Historic Preservation Committee are among these engaged activists.

Wednesday night, the PZHP Committee unanimously passed a resolution (”Criteria for selection of new Director of the Los Angeles Department of City Planning,” from the July 7, 2010 agenda) endorsing Ms. Goldberg’s four initiatives and urging that a new city planner (to be named by the mayor) continue the commitment to these principles.

In a future post I’ll say a bit about the Hollywood Community Plan, also discussed Wednesday night, which is designed to guide development across many neighborhoods for the foreseeable future.  As the plan nears completion, GGPNC is among the neighborhood councils actively involved in refining it.

(Image from Los Angeles Department of City Planning website.)

The quotation is on the fiscal morass the State of Illinois – where I was born and bred – finds itself in today.  From yesterday’s New York Times, “Illinois Stops Paying Its Bills, But Can’t Stop Digging Hole,” by Michael Powell, July 2, 2010.

Several other quotes also got my attention, including this one on the dire economy nationwide, as states lay off literally tens of thousands of workers: “You’re not seeing these states bounce back, and that could be a big drag on the national economy,” said Susan K. Urahn of the Pew Center on the States. “It could be a very tough decade.”

Image of Rod Blogojevich (from Wikimedia) prompted by this passage in the article: “Few budget analysts are surprised to see Illinois, with a limping economy and broken political culture, edge close to the abyss. Two of the last six governors have served jail terms, and a third is on trial.”

By the end of April, calls for boycotts of Arizona businesses had begun.  On April 26, Darrell Steinberg, the leader of the California State Senate, suggested that the state consider a boycott and asked Governor Schwarzenegger for a list of Arizona firms (and government agencies) that do business with the State of California. ["Steinberg says California should consider boycotting Arizona in protest of immigration law" by Patrick McGreevy, LAT, April 27, 2010]

By the next day, Los Angeles City Council members had weighed in. ["Calls to boycott Arizona grow over new immigration law," by Anna Gorman and Nicholas Ricardi, LAT, April 28, 2010]  On May 12, the Los Angeles City Council passed a law banning most city travel to Arizona and future contracts with Arizona businesses.  San Francisco passed a similar ban the same week. ["L.A. council bans most official travel to Arizona," by Phil Willon, LAT, May 13, 2010]

At the beginning of June, the County of Los Angeles suspended funding for travel to Arizona and initiated a study of how to terminate contracts with Arizona companies and divest of Arizona state and municipal bonds by the country’s pension fund.  Los Angeles Unified School District passed a resolution condemning the law, recommending additional steps to sever economic ties to Arizona, and asking Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines to make the study of the law part of the school curriculum.  ["L.A. County votes to boycott Arizona over immigration law," by Garrett Therolf and Howard Blume, LAT, June 2, 2010]

Many other cities and public agencies, across California and the nation, have proposed boycotts or condemned the law.  The legislation, however controversial, maintains popular support, even in California ["Voters split on Arizona law," by Seema Mahta, LAT, May 31, 2010], and some ‘rule of law’ cities in California and nationally have endorsed the law.  [See “Who is boycotting Arizona?"]  Several states may follow Arizona’s lead. ["Many legislators aim to copy Ariz. immigration law," by John Miller, AP, May 26, 2010]

A number of immigrant rights and civil rights groups, including two based in Los Angeles – the National Immigration Law Center and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, have mounted legal challenges to the law. [See June 5, 2010 press release, "SB 1070 | ARIZONA: NICL and Civil Rights Groups Ask Court to Block Implementation of Arizona's Racial Profiling Law During Legal Battle."]

This week, Robert K. Ross, MD, president and CEO of The California Endowment, and Ruth Wernig, chief investment officer, sent a letter advising six Arizona companies that the foundation was considering divestment of Arizona assets.

As one of the nation’s largest foundations (and the second largest foundation in Los Angeles, behind the Getty Trust), this news may be expected to send ripples across the nonprofit sector.

According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy (”Calif. Nonprofit Group Rethinks Its Investments in Light of Ariz. Immigration Law,” June 30, 2010), which featured this story yesterday, the California Endowment has $5.2 million invested in Arizona.

The statement – an extended version of the letter on the president’s blog, “Bob’s Blog: Arizona’s Immigration Law is Un-American” – acknowledges the need for immigration reform, but condemns the Arizona law as unjust.  While there is an emphasis on the fiduciary responsibilities to the foundation’s investment portfolio, clearly that is not where the concerns begin.

“The very heart of The California Endowment’s mission requires that we work in the underserved communities in our state and that we do so with respect for the dignity of those communities and the people in them.

Time and again, we find the health of the people in those communities damaged by the lack of the most basic building blocks of health: access to clean drinking water, clean air to breathe, the ability to buy fresh fruits and vegetables, safe places to exercise. Time and again, we find that the lack of those basics cause people in those underserved communities to be sicker and to die sooner. Time and again, we feel called to support those communities when they decide they must work to change the places they live for the better.”

Dr. Ross suggests that law will lead to racial profiling, which stands in opposition to the California Endowment’s “core mission and values.”  That is the principle indictment of the law, which reveals a stark contrast:  “So the question is: how can we work hard every day to help Californians eliminate the inequalities they face…using money we made from supporting inequality?”

The statement suggests that “a wave of divestments” will send a powerful message.  By looking critically at its investment portfolio, the California Endowment offers another way to support underserved communities across the state.  Furthermore, as that wave increases in velocity, and consequently Arizona businesses become increasingly vulnerable, fiduciary considerations offer an additional reason to divest.

It remains to be seen whether other foundations follow the lead of the California Endowment.

The companies that received the foundation’s letter are: PetSmart (pet supplies retailer), Grand Canyon Education Inc. (which owns the for-profit Grand Canyon University), Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (electricity and energy-related products), Republic Services Inc. (waste management and garbage collection), Avnet (electronic products and services) – all of Phoenix – and Microchip Technology (microcontroller and analog semiconductors) of Chandler.

Editor’s note: My thanks to Jeffrey Okey of the California Endowment for information about this issue.

At a time when rumblings of succession were stirring in the San Fernando Valley, the Harbor area, and Hollywood, a new City Charter was adopted, which created the framework for establishing neighborhood councils throughout Los Angeles.  Neighborhood councils, according to the Charter, are designed to “promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

A 2007 USC Policy Brief, “Toward Community Engagement in City Governance: Evaluating Neighborhood Council Reform in Los Angeles,” presented the findings of a multi-year study of neighborhood councils.  The report, written by Juliet Musso, Christopher Weare, Mark Elliot, Alicia Kitsuse, and Ellen Shiau, evaluated neighborhood councils along a number of dimensions and found that among the issue-areas on which neighborhood councils focus, land use and planning issues are the most prominent.

“Land use and planning (including transportation) together constitute the single most important issue area to councils at 49% of all issue-oriented activities. Activities related to specific discretionary actions, such as requests for zoning changes and other project-level variances, account for nearly half of land use agenda items. These specific project activities comprise a quarter of all issue activities.” [p. 32]
…
“Citywide, land use was the single most frequently cited area of accomplishment (29%).  Community beautification and transportation were mentioned at 23% and 11% respectively.” [p. 34]

A typical land use issue arises when a developer proposes a construction project that violates zoning restrictions in the area.  In such a case, he must seek a variance from the City Planning Department.  Following adoption of the new City Charter, neighborhood councils now have an advisory role in this process.

While there is no guarantee that the Planning Department will follow a council’s recommendation, in practice it often does so.  That’s why we have neighborhood councils, after all: to get citizen input about their neighborhoods.

In the case at hand, the owner of the property at 1801-1817 New Hampshire intends to raze the buildings and construct a new apartment complex.  While the new project – based on architectural drawings – arguably has less charm than the garden apartments pictured, the proposal clearly has greater potential for earning revenue.

The owner has commissioned two sets of architectural plans.  The first, which violates the zoning requirements and thus requires a variance, creates one large building with a number of aesthetic features to increase the ‘charm’ quotient of the project.  The second, within his legal rights and consistent with zoning in the area, consists of three boxy buildings drained of pleasing aesthetic features – this version is ugly – but it has the same number of units (from which to collect rent) as the charming version that requires a variance.

So, is he bluffing?  Would he really build the homely version of the complex – 3 buildings allowed by the zoning code – to maximize the number of rentals within current zoning rules if he didn’t receive the variance?  Should the council say ‘No’ and call his bluff (hoping that his architect will go back to the drawing board and make those 3 boxy buildings more attractive)?  Or should the council play it safe and allow a variance – to permit a single building spanning 3 lots – because the single building proposed is more attractive than the alternative presented?

Council members were in disagreement about whether the threat to build a particularly unsightly complex was a bargaining ploy or a likely possibility.  At their May 18 meeting, the board deadlocked 6 to 6 on the motion, with 2 abstentions.  The chair chose not to break the tie.  The builder would go before the City Planning Department without a recommendation – either for or against – from GGPNC.

The supplement to the June 1 agenda includes minutes from the May 18 meeting and the recorded vote.