Los Angeles City Council; Ramping up, August 7

Council resolves for sales tax

I spent a few minutes yesterday morning listening to the debate in the Los Angeles City Council over whether the body should support the effort to put a half-cent sales tax increase before county voters in November. The tax hike, if approved, would pay for a slew of road and transit improvements across Los Angeles County.

The City Council voted 10 to 2 to support it. The no votes came from council members Richard Alarcon and Dennis Zine. Both protested -- and others joined them -- that the San Fernando Valley would not get its fair share of the expected $30 billion to $40 billion of revenues from the sales tax, if implemented, over the next three decades.

Alarcon, in particular, was vocal on the "fair share" argument. And, in fact, many other elected officials in Los Angeles County have echoed his concerns. Judge for yourself: the Metro spending plan has money for a busway along Canoga Avenue, another north-south busway in the eastern side of the Valley, $1 billion for a vaguely defined transit project along the Sepulveda Pass, improvements to the 5 Freeway in the northeast Valley.

But on a per dollar basis, the Westside, for example, gets more money from sales tax revenues. And the Westside would get two rail lines -- extensions of the Expo Line to Santa Monica and the subway, perhaps as far as Westwood.

Alarcon, who repeatedly called the sales tax hike a bond measure, said "the San Fernando Valley deserves better treatment, we're not getting our fair share. The first time I ran for office I said 'I'm going to fight for our fair share.' "

The City Council tossed around the phrase "fair share" a lot. I covered the council for three years and all that talk got me thinking about politics in the Valley, job-swapping among elected officials and the kind of long-term work and tenacity it takes to fix long-term problems such as transportation, the schools, the police and crime, etc.

Question: Has Richard Alarcon ever fought for his own fair share?

In 2006, for example, just days after being elected to the Assembly, Alarcon declared that he would run for City Council to try to fill the seat being vacated by Alex Padilla, who had been elected to the state Senate in the middle of his council term.

Alarcon's two primary opponents -- then Assemblywoman Cindy Montanez and Padilla chief-of-staff Felipe Fuentes -- subsequently dropped out of the race after meetings with the mayor's office. It just so happens that they dropped out of the race on the same day in December 2007.

How is it that Alarcon, a former councilman, could run for City Council?

It was possible, of course, because voters approved a ballot measure to ease term limits. The City Council had put the measure on the ballot and then run an ad campaign that made it sound as if the measure, if approved, would restrict council members' time in office -- not possibly lengthen it.

And what was the fallout?

Alarcon, Fuentes and Montanez all won, for all intents and purposes.

Alarcon, in an election in which only 15% of registered voters turned out to vote, won the Council seat in March. He subsequently resigned his Assembly seat and joined the Council, where he immediately saw his salary upgraded by more than $60,000 from what he was earning in Sacramento.

In the race, Alarcon raised tens of thousands of dollars from his colleagues in the the Legislature. He also had to move into the 7th Council District but still faced allegations from an opponent in the race that he wasn't actually living in the district. Instead, the opponent alleged the house in Panorama City was abandoned.

And what happened to Fuentes?

Fuentes won Alarcon's vacated Assembly seat. He initially kept a low profile on the Assembly, but earned some ink this past spring when a controversy erupted over a bill he cowrote with a developer and campaign contributor. The bill would have made it more difficult for the city of Los Angeles to stop a project the developer wanted to build.

Fuentes subsequently killed the bill, but not before Los Angeles Councilwoman Wendy Greuel declared that she was "disgusted" by the effort. Fuentes, it should also be noted, said that the bill was intended to help create more housing and was not intended to help any one person.

What about Montanez? Did she recover from dropping out of the Council race?

It depends on the meaning of "recover." She still has not been elected to office after leaving the Assembly at the end of 2006.

However, she was quickly appointed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to the City Planning Commission. And, then-Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, a firm Villaraigosa ally, appointed her to the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, where Montanez is currently making $130,000 annually.

More recently, Montanez was hired by DWP chief David Nahai to serve as a lobbyist for the agency. That's a job that pulls $12,500 a month.

Nahai told The Times' David Zahniser that he did not believe the state job would distract Montanez from her duties at the DWP.

"The appeals board, as you may know, is an engagement that is only one day a month," said Nahai, who this year ordered an audit of his home's water use -- his sprinklers were running when it rained -- after journalist Alan Mittelstaedt had to threaten to sue to get Nahai to release his own water bills. (The Times' L.A. Now also had a nice elaboration on that soggy episode.)

I called the DWP on Wednesday and asked spokesman Joe Ramallo to pass along an interview request to Montanez. I wanted to ask her if the political rumors are true that she was planning to run for City Council next year in the 2nd District -- a seat that may be vacated if Wendy Greuel wins election to city controller.

Where's Greuel going?

Greuel is leaving in the middle of her term to run for citywide office, a job that would raise her profile -- meaning she would leave office before the Council has a chance to implement the strategic transportation plan she has called for.

Ramallo said he would pass along the request, but I never heard back from Montanez.

So what does any of this have to do with LAUSD school board member Tamar Galatzan?

Galatzan, who received more than $2 million in campaign help from a Villaraigosa-controlled committee, toppled school board incumbent Jon Lauritzen last year to win a seat on the school board. Shortly after she won election, I phoned her and asked if the rumors were true that she was going to run for Greuel's seat in 2009 if Greuel ran and won city controller?

No, said Galatzan.

I called her again Wednesday and asked the same question. But I got a different answer this time:

"I'm flattered that my name has come up and people have been talking to me about it and it's something I'm considering," said Galatzan, who is now 13 months into her four-year term as a school board member.

I reminded her of our conversation last year. "I don't remember what it was I told you," she said.

She also elaborated on the reasons that she might run:

"The person who is going to take over after Wendy Greuel leaves in [Council District 2] is probably going to serve in that seat for 14 years," Galatzan said. "It's three terms [as the law allows] plus the one-and-a-half extra years [left] on [Greuel's] term. It's important to me as someone who lives in the district and raises my kids in the district that my community is really represented by someone who is strong and capable and independent, and that's why I'm thinking about it."

I asked her if perhaps there was someone else besides her capable of serving on the Council in the second district. The district, after all, is home to more than 250,000 people -- not counting carpet-bagging candidates who move into the district to run for the Council.

"I don't want to be one of those people who just uses jobs as stepping stones, and that's probably the No. 1 thing that I'm thinking about," Galatzan said. "I can only do so much on the school board. If CD2 is not represented by someone good for the next 14 years, my kids are going to be out of school by the time there is really another opportunity to make a difference on the City Council. And so many of the issues that I deal with as a school board member and a deputy city attorney really come down to leadership on the City Council."

"I haven't heard any one else's name come forward who i think, I don't even know how to say this, I haven't heard a name yet come froward that i think would be a strong advocate for those of us who live and raise families in this council district," Galatzan added.

Next, I asked Galatzan about a YouTube video I had just watched. In the video -- shot during her campaign in the spring of 2007 -- Galatazan said: "I am really running for school board to make sure that my boys get the kind of world class public education that they are entitled to."

Later in the video she complained that an elementary school in Sherman Oaks didn't have enough money to purchase more paper for the copy machine. Then, in the video, she said, "You know me as someone who ruffles feathers and isn't afraid to ask tough questions. I keep my word and I stand up for what I believe in."

So, I asked, what does it say about her honesty that last year she said that she wouldn't run and now she's saying she might.

"That's definitely something I'm thinking a lot about. It really comes down to what can I do about [making] the community...the kind of place my kids and my family are safe and how are my skills best used," she said. "It's been an interesting year at L.A. Unified and the truth is I don't know how much I can do on the Board or any one person can do on the Board."

Finally, I asked Galatzan why she thinks people are cynical about politicians.

"When I decided to run, so many people I know thought I was crazy," she said. "Why would you want to do something like that, why open up your personal life to so many prying eyes?...That really made me sad. We get the kind of elected officials that we deserve when that's our attitude. It's not fun to run for office, it's not fun to have attack pieces showing you and your family. I think it takes the kind of person who will do anything to be an elected official because they like the power or prestige -- or the type of person who believes that they may change things."

Why do reporters hate themselves in the morning?

Because I stupidly did not ask her about the tens of thousands of current and future LAUSD students she represents besides her own children -- many of whom don't have a mom who can run for office.

What does all this have to do with elected officials having the tenacious long-term focus to improve transportation in the eastern side of the Valley and ensure the area gets its fair share?

Maybe nothing.

Maybe everything.

You decide. That's why we have a comment board.

--Steve Hymon

From top, Alarcon photo: Brian Vander Brug / Los Angeles Times

Fuentes photo: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press

Montanez photo: John Lok / Los Angeles Times

Greuel photo: Al Seib / Los Angeles Times

Galatzan photo: Lawrence K. Ho / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[John von Kerczek]

I popped off a little heatedly in my last comment, but I want to clarify my point. The ideology, sentiment, and basic political assumptions underlying the opposition’s arguments are outgrowths of some of the more unsavory aspects of LA’s history and development. The most conservative districts of the SFV and SGV have a history of championing policies that benefit their areas at the expense of the city and wrapping those policies in a cloak of entitlement and false populism. Their current cries of “equity” and “fair share” are no different.

[Jeff Carpenter]

Regarding the San Fernando Valley and its fair share of transit investment, it has to be remembered that for a long time the Valley elected representatives that furiously opposed transit of any kind--but particularly rail transit--in the Valley. To mention but a few instances: In the 1980's, a Valley elected representative forced a change in Red Line station in North Hollywood so that, in her view, the line could never be extended west as was originally planned. The legislative legacy of former Senator Alan Robbins continues to hamstring the possibilities for transit investment to this day.

Although the Valley is now electing new leadership, it will take a long time and considerable commitment to reverse out this long legacy.

[Tommy]

van Kerczek's rant that the SGV is a haven for white folks who have it out for minorities is pathetic. The SGV is home to an incredible display of diversity, and its ethnic minorities actually make up a majority of the valley. Ever been to Pomona? Monterey Park? El Monte? Walnut? Azusa?

Dan W's consistent claim that everyone else already got tons of money so the Westside should get the bulk of today's money is not strong. Just go back to Prop 1B and the distribution of those funds (405 freeway, Expo, Crenshaw) and see that your equity argument is not correct. You don't want to play that game, because you'll lose as you go back farther in time.

Gabbard's hope that the Supervisors will change position just is not going to happen. As if Antonio won't bring back a better deal next year if the Supervisors stand strong!

This is fascinating debate to see here. Good blog Hymon.

[John von Kerczek]

Re: "Fair Share"

When have the San Fernando and the San Gabriel Valleys ever NOT gotten everything they wanted?

They wanted to live in the suburbs. We built aqueducts, highways, and other infrastructure, and gave them cheap mortgages and gasoline to enable them to do so.

They didn't want to live around black and brown people. We let them incorporate into municipal tax shelters, pass restrictive covenants, and enact legislation like Prop. 14. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14)

They insisted they be able to drive anywhere they damn well felt. We gouged out our neighborhoods, leveled entire city blocks, ceded our streets, and tied our building codes into knots to accommodate them and their cars.

They insisted that they paid too much in taxes supporting lazy minorities who refuse pull themselves up by their bootstraps and live upstanding lives following their virtuous example. We let them enact Proposition 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) ) and skim off the cream of prosperity while leaving the city the blue milk of deteriorating infrastructure, crappy schools, and chronic, hyper-concentrated poverty.

As defined by Antonovich, Molina, Alarcon, et. al., equity is just a fraudulent populist code for the same greed that has for decades bankrupted the city for the suburbs’ enrichment.

[Antonio Pacheco]

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/01/local/me-maps1
this article is incredibly interesting.

[BOB2]

Steve,

You didn't mean imply that some of these elected officials are really committed to running for higher offices , or are addicted to perks and fat salaries, in the musical chairs game of term limits? And, not really committed to to making good public policy for transportation, or schools, or anything else? Shocked., I'm simply shocked.......

Bob

[Andy]

“Or access for the residents of Downtown to jobs in the Westside?”

Or, in fact, access for the residents of most of LA to the Westside through tranfer. Also the biggest and most immediate benefit of the “subway to the sea” would be to the transit dependent folks currently packing the 720 for a traffic plagued, bumpy, standing room only trip down Wilshire. Whether or not rich westsiders will opt for the subway remains to be seen, but it’s a self evident fact that on this busy corridor RAPID busses aren’t sufficient even for existing transit users, few of which (I would imagine) live on the Westside.

This shouldn’t be about who gets more money or miles of rail, but instead about how we can use limited resources to best improve peoples ability to get where they want and need to go.

[Morgan Wick]

Next let's take a look at the politicians holding the sales tax hostage for the sake of their Gold Line.

"Funding from the sales tax increase should be given on a per capita basis according to the diverse geographic regions on the metropolitan area. It makes no sense to give the Westside a bulk of the money, for example, while leaving areas like the San Fernando Valley or East Los Angeles largely ignored. We are not simply seeking to grant access for the residents of the Westside to their jobs in Downtown."

Or access for the residents of Downtown to jobs in the Westside?

[M]

A major problem with the Valley is a lack of transportation down the 405. Even with the new subway being planned, it doesn't help much to make people ride the orange line (which has already surpassed projected ridership numbers, and you can tell when you board), to the Red Line, to the new lines, which will result in a ride that isn't much, if at all, faster than the current buses that take people down there and is by far slower than a car trip down there except if there are major traffic issues. If transportation isn't convenient people won't use it unless they are forced to and people stop taking jobs down there. I live in the SFV and that's why I refuse to work in Santa Monica where there are an abundant number of jobs in my field. I have friends that live in the SFV that want to quit jobs in Santa Monica specifically because of the transportation issues down there.

[Greg]

Best bottleneck blog post ever. More like this, less Batman (ok one Batman was amusing, but...). And thank you, poster DJ for putting on the concluding paragraph that Steve forgot.

For those who might disagree with my enthusiasm, I suggest that you read "722 Miles," a political history of building the subway in New York.

[Dana Gabbard]

I recently commented on experts and how they shape arguments to support the views they already hold. Similarly politicians use words like equity and fair share in ways to (what a shock) prove more money needs to be spent in their district. And sometimes prevent it from being spent elsewhere. It is selfish, shortsighted behavior of the sort we despise when he see 5 years olds engage in it on the playground. And it isn't pretty when petty politicians trot it out.

The Valley, BTW, just got a $400 million busway called the Orange Line. This whining the Valley never gets a dime spent is part and parcel of the dysfunctional political culture that afflicts the north and east parts of the County. Millions have been spent on Metrolink in these areas, which the westside subsidized. Yet somehow now we are being unfair to these areas if a dime is spent on the westside.

My one hope is this sort of empty grandstanding will wilt in the new era of scrutiny. So far the 3 Supervisors who said no on the sales tax are standing firm, but maybe the continual glare of attention will start to make them squirm.

Alarcon has long had a grudge against Metro, starting all the way back to when he was promoting (then opposing--hey, when he left the Council to serve in Sacramento his allegiances shifted and to serve his career he shifted position on the zone--Mr. Alarcon never lets mere principle stand in the way of his ambition) the stillborn San Fernando Valley Transit Zone (on which millions of L.A. city tax dollars were wasted doing studies, etc.--what a great legacy, Mr. Alarcon!).

[Dan W.]

Fair share?

Alarcon is forgetting that the north Valley already has Metrolink commuter rail service and the Westside nothing.

I do agree the Valley needs a comprehensive transit plan, including eventual upgrade of the Orange Line to rail, the Sepulveda project, a project connecting North Hollywood and the Burbank Media district to the Pasadena Gold Line, and something for Ventura Blvd.

However, existing rail service should be included in a discussion of "equity".

[DJ]

Bravo, Steve. My conclusion to the question you pose at the end is that these people are all selfish politicians. And more importantly (and tragically), they don't care about solutions. They care about very narrow, provincial interests. In fact, only interests that can somehow tangibly advance themselves. When will these people wake up and start planning for the future?

The ball needs to get rolling on transportation issues and this funding is an easy way to start. And hopefully, with a new president focused on improving our own country, we can realize even more dollars as we get a head start on all these projects.

Thanks for reminding us that these so-called "policy makers" are nothing more than cowards.

[Oscar]

Fair Share.

When the first Metro rail master plan was being put together Kenneth Hahn said, I'll go for this, but as long as it runs through my district, and so begot the blue line, which is now the most highly used of the Metro light rail lines. Was it the smartest choice based on need?

Well I think in that instance it was, it served a great deal of the population of south LA who are dependent on mass transit, even though it was a political move.

As mass transit is becoming more and more of a popular item, everyone wants it, but does everyone really need it? I get that politicians have to pander to their constituency, but I think long range planning for transportation should include a needs assessment, for the planners to make smart decisions that will enable the best use of mass transit.

Mass transit here in this city has been put in a headlock, by inept politicians, NIMBYs, funding and all of us that make the conscious decision not to use it. Now our need is greater, but we shouldn't let our personal need overshadow the greatest need and most effective use of transit in this city.

[Antonio Pacheco]

Thank you for an amazing blog overall, and post, specifically.

As a part-time resident of the Eastern San Fernando Valley (I go to school out of state, but come home for summers, etc) )who doesn't drive, I have been trying to keep abreast of this sales tax debate and how incredibily crucial it is to the future of this city. Our elected officials have a responsibility to provide effective, dependable, and varied means of transportation for the residents of Los Angeles and I do not know if they are necessarily doing such a great job. Funding from the sale tax increase should be given on a per capita basis according to the diverse geographic regions on the metropolitan area. It makes no sense to give the Westside a bulk of the money, for example, while leaving areas like the San Fernando Valley or East Los Angeles largely ignored. We are not simply seeking to grant access for the residents of the Westside to their jobs in Downtown. Instead, we should be aiming towards stiching together a cohesive and interconnected network of transportation systems so that we can all have access to every part of the city.

At the same time, however, I would rather have funds distributed unequally than not at all. We have squandered the last 30 years in terms of transit planning in this city and now, we have to wait 30 more to get up to speed with today's transportation needs? I sure hope not. We need to act now.

I am purposely keeping California as my voting state so that I can vote for this bill.