GPW endorses ABO for CD4 -- "Anyone But O'Grady"

Update 2/27/15 - the plot thickens:

1. The LA Times published this piece on O'Grady yesterday about mismanagement of his non-profit and the mixing of that and his campaign. The mismanagement described isn't heinous, but what it illustrates is a personality trait of concern - when one thinks their 'shit don't stink', they start playing fast and loose with things like money, and regulation. The non-profit issues are fundamental things that anyone in the management of a non-profit would know better than to engage in, so there ya go.

2. Jack Humphreyville seems to have backpeddled and now supports Sheila Irani for CD 4. You should read the CD 4 sections of Jack's CityWatch article today. The list of who has private expenditure committees and where their funding comes from is very useful. Going from that list, I'd strike not only O'Grady (goes without saying) and Veres, but Ryu and possibly Knox from getting my vote...

3. We should remind everyone that O'Grady HATES Friends of Griffith Park. So much for the environmentalist, eh? That should tell you everything you need to know if you care about Griffith Park.


On to Tuesday. Good luck CD 4. You deserve better than some of these candidates.
--

Update:

The LA Times endorses Sheila Irani for CD 4! Thank goodness some sense has returned to the high profile endorsement arena. 

Meanwhile, candidate Steve Veres has some serious conflict of interest issues brewing. So OK - vote Anyone But O'Grady or Veres.


---------------
Been away from blogging for a little while to concentrate on High Speed Rail and major impacts on the Angeles National Forest and on Los Angeles' drinking water.  But the following requires commentary, now.

The CD4 primary election in early March just took a frightening turn: the LA Daily News endorsed both Teddy Davis and Tomas O'Grady yesterday. Davis is allegedly stating that it was his endorsement alone, so I think we'd all like to hear how this changed. That aside, given this frightening DN news, Griffith Park Wayist is making our endorsement right now for CD 4: 

VOTE ABO - Anyone But O'Grady! Lord knows GPW has written about past O'Grady tactics in real-time here during his tenure on the board of the Neighborhood Council Formerly Known As "Greater Griffith Park" and the run-up to the last CD 4 election. Nothing has changed, except the guy's patience, planning and guile, it appears.

To remind yourself of those fun times, just run a search on keyword Tomas O'Grady on this blog.

I've been told that LAUSD moms have totally fallen for the adopted O'Grady persona, and now the Daily News has as well. Scary stuff.

Vote ABO- Anyone But O'Grady for CD 4 and don't make that mistake.

O'Grady is the worst choice for Griffith Park, flat-out.  Here's a list of all the others who would, to a person, be a better choice:

• Carolyn Ramsey
• Sheila Irani
• Teddy Davis
• Joan Pelico
• Jay Beeber
• Tara Bannister
• Mike Schaefer
• Rostom Sarkissian
• Step Jones
• Fred Mariscal
• Wally Knox
• Steve Veres David Ryu

Vote ABO- Anyone But O'Grady

Good luck, CD 4.



Back to High Speed Rail craziness... for now.

New 'Griffith Park Park Advisory Board' named, process is suspect

Park Advisory Boards and their members are essential to the overall operation of a recreation facility. The Department of Recreation and Parks believes that the partnership between staff and the community is of primary importance in identifying and meeting the recreational needs of the community. A Park Advisory Board works to make facilities safe, clean, and hospitable while offering guidance and assistance on programming and fundraising.

A Park Advisory Board member must be a community stakeholder and understand the community’s needs and interests. A member should support park improvements and help establish goals for the park. A member should also assist with special events and fundraising for park improvements. All PAB members are selected by the Department of Recreation and Parks staff.

- from Rec and Parks'  Park Advisory Board handbook

First off, let me state that I did apply for this Park Advisory Board (PAB). I knew I would not be named - if you don't know why I knew this, then you clearly don't read this blog often enough.  :-)   I have some longstanding familiarity with the Dept. of Recreation and Parks' PAB system. The main reason I applied is to observe this particular process by being part of it.

Initially there were approximately 20 people who applied to be on this PAB by the published deadline. There were then two days of interviews. Those who applied had a choice of 1 of 2 days in which to schedule the interview. 

Then, mysteriously, at least another one or two days of interviews after the deadline took place, after the initial interviews.

So who actually applied by the deadline? And, how many of those appointed were likely solicited by someone to apply after the official deadline? How many of those were chosen for the PAB? (probably most of them.)


It's worth noting that any PAB is all about the RECREATION.  In fact, PABs are typically associated with a specific Rec Center. Wildlife and environment is not part of the main mission of these boards.

With that in mind, Griffith Park deserves a WASC as well as a PAB.  A WASC is  a Wildlife Areas Steering Committee.  Sepulveda Basin has a longstanding WASC.  I hope environment-minded groups like the Sierra Club - who, glaringly, has no members on this PAB - step up and demand equal time with a WASC for Griffith Park.

Each potential member must .... Be the only representative from an outside organization serving on the PAB.

         - from Rec and Parks'  Park Advisory Board handbook

With this in mind, who was chosen for the Griffith Park PAB?

We're not 100% certain who all these people are exactly as of yet, but the names are correct as provided by the department. Where there is a question about identity, we've marked it with a question mark.

1. Don Seligman - Treasurer of the Los Feliz Improvement Association.
2. Ann Marie Johnson - Most recently but not currently Tom LaBonge's field deputy; recent Silverlake Neighborhood Council board member.
3. Barbara Ferris - Board member of the Neighborhood Council Formerly Called Greater Griffith Park; Symphony in the Glen managing director who has a project in Griffith Park and derives income from activities in the park; Los Feliz Improvement Association board member.
4. Chip Clements - likely? the Chip Clements who is the owner of Clements Environmental Corp; affiliated with the Hollywoodland Homeowners Association.
5. Jerry Petryha - likely? a disability lawyer of the same name from Encino.
6. Ted Johnson - possibly? a writer at Variety by the same name who covers Tom LaBonge's antics.
7. Alex Chavez - recent Hollywoodland Homeowners Association president.
8. Chris Laib - Current president of the Los Feliz Improvement Association.
9. Laura Howe - Friends of Griffith Park volunteer coordinator.
10. Janell Mullen - likely? an Urban Planner and program manager with the Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative.
11. Kris Sullivan - likely? another Hollywoodland Homeowners Association member.
12. Lynn Brown - Los Angeles Equine Advisory Board.
13. Susan Swan - Hollywood United Neighborhood Council; Oaks resident almost 30 years.
14. Susan Lee - likely? the Former CEO, Korean Munhwa Broadcasting Company and current National Director of Urban Peace at The Advancement Project California.
15. Lucinda Phillips - Longtime Oaks Resident; Friends of Fern Dell.

Looking at the selections, in all honesty I have never seen a park advisory board made up of people who are either employees of or directors of so many special interests and agencies who make money in development-type activities. Typically a park advisory board is made up of neighbors, park volunteers, and a few individuals who have either concessions or facilities in the park itself.

There is also the issue of the requirement quoted above that says just one member of an outside organization can serve on the board.  I count at least three from the Los Feliz Improvement Association, and at least three from the Hollywoodland Homeowners Association.

And then there is the irregularity with the process. This particular irregularity smells of the modus operandi of a certain City Councilmember, doesn't it?  No surprise there.

Meanwhile...

Ballfields, Bandshell projects impacting Griffith Park to be voted on Wednesday

Update: these items are continued to the April 2nd Commission meeting. Keep sending in your public comment on these items. Link is below. 
---

On Wednesday March 5th April 2nd, the newly appointed Recreation and Parks Commission will be voting on two boutique projects from Councilmember Tom LaBonge to potentially be constructed in Griffith Park:

1. More ballfields at Crystal Springs picnic area, and

2. New Performing Arts Center (aka the Bandshell) in the Old Zoo picnic area.

If you haven't recently weighed in to the Recreation and Parks Commission on your opinion about these projects, you can do so by emailing the commission with your public comment here.


New Performing Arts Center:

This project is the baby of close LaBonge supporter and Symphony in the Glen director, Barbara Ferris. Ms. Ferris ran for the board of the Neighborhood Council Formerly Called Greater Griffith Park primarily to see this through, among other things.

The Old Zoo area is an active wildlife corridor. Per the Cultural Heritage designation for Griffith Park, this project is located within the Urban Wilderness boundary, where, ostensibly, construction is to be done only if absolutely necessary. Is this project necessary?


New Baseball fields:

Since we last discussed this project,  a number of things have become clear in recent weeks:

Pote Field on a normal day.

• The Atwater alternative was never a serious alternative location.

• There were more public comments on the EIR opposing this train wreck than supporting it.

• Councilmember LaBonge was originally determined to place his ballfields at the top of Toyon Canyon - in the interior wildlife area and where the roads are currently closed in the park. He was later forced to move the project, and chose Crystal Springs. There are already underused baseball fields located at Crystal Springs (called Pote Field). Clearly, then, moving the project hasn't been exactly verboten in the past.

• The Griffith Trust - whose board includes Van Griffith - opposes this project and would support it if relocated to Ferraro Fields, where there is plenty of room to not displace any stakeholder group.

• The current predominant stakeholder group at Crystal Springs - the group who will be displaced by this project - is predominantly Latino families who are essentially picnicking, holding birthday parties, and other passive uses. Recently, the propaganda machine around this project has been at work claiming that this is not true.
  
  The propaganda machine is absolutely incorrect: ask anyone without a dog in the fight who actually visits Crystal Springs regularly on a nice day. I've been at Crystal Springs a couple hundred times over the past ten years for various reasons, and the consistent user group is definitely predominantly Latino families picnicking.  Most weekends, because it is so popular, Crystal Springs is completely impacted - finding any parking for anything in the area is insanely difficult.This project displaces a majority of these users, plain and simple.

• A couple of weeks ago, LaBonge aide Carolyn Ramsay popped in to a Rec and Parks Commission subcommittee to discuss her boss's project, opening with (paraphrase): 'The Councilman has wanted this his whole life'.  And that right there constitutes the entire needs assessment on this project.

• Finally, would the councilmember still want the project if it were at Ferraro Fields rather than Crystal Springs? Ferraro is also used by a predominantly Latino user group, but there is plenty of room to add ball fields without displacing anyone.

So why weren't the Ferraro Fields part of the EIR as an alternative site for this project? Why is Ferraro Fields verboten?

Two possible reasons flow out of all of the information and disinformation surrounding this project. One is that the area is already named for the late, great John Ferraro, so the "Tom LaBonge Ballfields at Ferraro Fields" ain't gonna cut it.

The other is much more unfortunate: Who is being displaced at Crystal Springs? Who is the dominant stakeholder group at Ferraro Fields - a stakeholder group that would not be displaced but would remain if the project was moved there?  The potential implication is ugly, but cannot be ignored.


The new Recreation and Parks Commission will likely pass both these boutique projects through for the outgoing Councilmember LaBonge and his close supporter, but the public record - and the questions - will remain.

'Los Feliz Forward' a major step backwards

Special to Griffith Park Wayist.

------------
The Disappointing Priorities of Los Feliz “Forward”

By John F. John Jr.

Maximize your assets
Minimize your liabilities

This is a business strategy so basic it seems silly to even mention it. However the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council governing board, led by the Los Feliz Forward slate, is sadly operating in exact reverse. It was never more apparent than in the back-to-back votes during the last month’s meeting of the Executive Committee.

First vote was to suspend all activities of the Parks River and Open Space committee providing they don’t offer a suggestion for a committee chair. Putting the procedural absurdity of this vote aside, this action would effectively kill the GGPNC’s greatest asset.

PROS provides oversight to one of the crown jewels of our city, Griffith Park. And not just a crown jewel, Griffith Park is a national treasure as the largest urban wilderness in our country. It is a destination for tourist from around the world. It is the location of truly iconic images such as the Hollywood Sign and Griffith Observatory. It is the home to a delicate plant and wildlife ecosystem.

PROS played a major role in achieving cultural historic landmark status for the entire park. The PROS committee is comprised of more local volunteers, regional leaders, and community activist than any other GGPNC committee. PROS is also our council’s most stalwart watchdog over city bureaucracy.

There is no stronger advocate for preserving the spirit of Griffith J. Griffith’s open ended gift to our city than the PROS committee. That is why it is absolutely mind boggling to me that the GGPNC would vote to suspend all activities of this strategic group.

Admittedly it should have come as no surprise. I have been an observer or the GGPNC board meetings for nearly four years. I have witness the repeated attacks by a few angry men against the former chairman of the committee. I have watched senseless debates over every single dollar that gets appropriated to PROS projects while money handed to other committees have very little questioning or oversight.

In recent action I watched the executive committee orchestrate a backward trip through time in order to overturn a vote from the prior board. Last June, the Executive Committee agreed on a plan to freeze nearly $38,000 of public funds. They did this under the agenda heading Other Comments and Announcement, hardly the open and transparent meetings they claim to hold. Included in this were nearly $15,000 allocated to the park.

Image credit: civicintersection.com

Later in the general board meeting Mark Mauceri moved to take back the money appropriated for the PROS newsletter. This was after two members of PROS reported that the news letter was only ten days from completion.

The newsletter was, “something we take a great deal of pride in” said Dr. Napier a long time Los Feliz resident and board member, “it is one of our most valuable resources”. However, that little gem of outreach had been targeted for years by Mauceri and (CD 4 candidate Tomas) O’Grady.  At the meeting last June they finally succeeded in its repeal. They both laughed openly at the chair as she tried to save it.

The way those two meetings were agendized, and the ram it through arguments presented by Ron Ostrow and others should have given me clear warning where the priorities were for the new board. Anyone who has worked with budgets knows there are a multitude of paths to achieve desired goals. Unfortunately for the park, the new board’s choice has been to slash funding rather than to find creative solutions.

Read the painful minutes of this procedural shenanigan and note that only the Los Feliz Forward slate voted in favor.


The focused effort against PROS is as much personal as it is philosophical. The former chair, Bernadette Soter, is a quiet powerhouse and formidable opponent at a board meeting. Ms Soter knows how to elbow her way through a debate involving limited funds. The obsession with PROS, I believe, is driven by the need of a few angry men to finally win an argument, any argument over Soter. They are willing to weaken park oversight in order to finally get their way.

Make no mistake about it; suspending PROS does nothing good for the park, the neighborhood or the GGPNC. It is a procedural one up where winning is more important than outcome.

Second vote and only moments later was the appointment of Mark Mauceri as the chairman of the newly-formed Recreation committee. The process for vetting a proper chair seems to change from committee to committee. PROS was required to attend an outreach meeting where Mauceri only had to show up with form letters signed by a few of his friends.

Without getting into a long list that will just burn a hole in the lining of my stomach, I will say from my perspective that Mr. Mauceri has been the GGPNC’s greatest liability.

Mr. Mauceri has never been far from the controversies that have surrounded the GGPNC in recent years. He pretty much failed as Secretary, a mess that is still being sorted out. He has conveniently lost minutes, misrepresent board positions and engaged in repeated shouting matches. He is the author of truly hateful emails. Here are some examples. He has written emails that denigrate a person’s race and sexual orientation. Later he proudly admits to the fact and suggests that more - and worse - could come.

No single person has generated more animosity with the long time residents attending the meetings. His east coast brand of aggressiveness has driven away valuable volunteers. I can’t imagine what the Executive Committee was thinking when they unanimously appointed this controversial figure to chair a committee.

Demote PROS.

Promote Mauceri.

It is the reverse universe. It is the exact opposite of what should be happening. The above two votes moves Los Feliz backwards not forward. The Executive Committee’s inability to effectively navigate the political waters of our council is very troubling. Their willingness to ignore the inherent controversy in a figure like Mark Mauceri and instead focus disproportionate time on PROS is a detriment to the neighborhood.

I say all of this with the knowledge that most of the Los Feliz forward members are sincere and vital volunteers. It is unfortunate that they are being led by the misguided few. Their leadership will talk a good talk and their response to my opinion will be as confusing as it is long winded and disingenuous.

I urge all members of Los Feliz and beyond to show up for the public meetings and help me defend Griffith Park from the limited vision of a few angry men.

Los Feliz Forward - disenfranchising to secure their power base at the GGPNC

Los Feliz Forward is the astroturf slate elected in whole under extremely questionable tactics to the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council last year.   Los Feliz Forward includes Tomas O'Grady, currently running for Tom LaBonge's CD 4 council district against proven community activist Stephen Box.

Other Los Feliz Forward member are  Alex De Ocampo, Christina Khanjian, Jessica Kornberg, Harpreet Malhi, Frank Masi, Mark F. Mauceri, Ron Ostrow, Leslie VanKeuren, and Mio Vuckovic.

Special to Griffith Park Wayist.

Changing the Rules of the Game

By Radio LosFeliz

The Los Feliz Forward slate of the new GGPNC board has made bylaw change one of their main goals, some might say obsession. They wasted no time voting their first big change into place last June.

After only two meetings they revised the nearly decade old bylaw and unanimously agreed that only the elected Los Feliz Forward team could vote for the next round of appointed board members. The other nine board members who had been serving for two years would not be allowed to vote. The disenfranchised nine considered worthy to vote on every other issue before the board have been denied a voice on who should replace them.

This is a long way from what was once considered and example of best practices by a leading author of the NC system and former General Manager of DONE, Greg Nelson. Mr. Nelson has stated he posted the GGPNC bylaws on their website as a shining model during his tenure.

Then Los Feliz Forward comes along. Elected not selected was the campaign cry that certainly rhymes nicely but causes real concern for anyone with experience and vision. Many of the existing appointed members have worked and lived in the neighborhood for decades. People like Charley Mims, Rosemary DeMonte and Nyla Arslanian bring to the table a sense of history and knowledge of how to navigate issue through the behemoth politics of City Hall. Those voices wont be heard when selecting new appointments. Los Feliz Forward will only further it’s lock and influence in the neighborhood council. No system is perfect but while choosing appointed representatives of the neighborhood council it seem highly unfair to deny a voice to 47 percent of the board.

Also in serious question is the lockstep voting habit of Los Feliz Forward. If you look back through the minutes you will find that the only time all Los Feliz Forward members show up for a meeting is when bylaw revisions are up for a vote. The required 12 votes to amend bylaws means all of Los Feliz Forward must attend and they all must vote exactly the same. It is almost as if serial meetings were taking place outside the boardroom because the coincidence of this happening on its own is astronomical.

However that voting block was shaken at the last board meeting when the newest member of Los Feliz Forward broke ranks. Nelson Bae who was recently appointed to fill the Religious Representative position failed to blindly follow the Los Feliz Forward slate in voting for the sweeping bylaw changes that were being proposed.

Many remember Bae’s appointment process at the meeting where Tor Hyams announced to the room that Scientology was not a recognized religion. Bae was running for the Religious Representative seat against Patrick Renne, a Scientologist and community activist. Renne offered this statement regarding his philosophy of interfaith cooperation and community betterment. Bea, who had no religious affiliation except for perhaps the Church of Mark Mauceri, expressed a genuine fondness for the neighborhood and offered he had been a football official.

When the question of qualification came up both Ron Ostrow and his side kick Tor Hyams encouraged the members not to dwell on qualifications as noted in the minutes:

Arslanian: Concerned about how a person represents religious community without being a leader of the community.
Ostrow: Clarifying that religious community representative description is absent from the bylaws but delineated in board action at the last appointment process.
Hyams: Objecting to further clarification on this point.
Ostrow: Agreeing further discussion of qualifications irrelevant.
Hyams: Opining that the Church of Scientology not a recognized religious body

After a long uncomfortable silence Ostrow tried to un-ring the bell by ruling the comment out of order.

In an ironic twist, Hyams repeated comments challenging Scientology’s religious validity came during the same meeting when wording of GGPNC bylaws was being revised to ensure impartiality. The Rules and Elections Committee chaired by Hyams himself recommended the following revision:

[To remain politically and ideologically non-partisan and inclusive in its operations including, but not limited to, the selection process for Governing Board and committee members;]

The slamming of Scientology was more an attempt to shoe-in a Los Feliz Forward pick than it was an actual affront to what must be thousands of stakeholders. But it is a telling example of what Los Feliz Forward will do the further their own agenda.

Changing the rules of the game is what occupies hours of meeting time. The changes lean heavily in favor of the existing Los Feliz Forward leadership. The methods to achieve these changes are increasingly unsettling. For a group that also made ethics a priority they seem pretty happy to backslide from the sermon they preach in public.

Disenfranchise nearly half the board, lockstep voting, and denouncing religious beliefs at a public meeting, even with all that I get the bad feeling that Los Feliz Forward is just getting started.

High-density shills infiltrate Griffith Park NC

Guest editorial by Radio LosFeliz.

Another Vote for High Density

The Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council's new deceptive duet of Tomas O'Grady and Mark Mauceri are once again supporting code violating development in Los Feliz. Shortly after being seated to their questionably-won GGPNC board positions, the dirty tricks team of O’Grady and Mauceri wasted no time in voting in favor of a developer asking for a significant variance from the city to build a massive apartment complex across three existing lots on New Hampshire avenue.

The O'Grady and Mauceri vote on May 18th was in direct opposition to the GGPNC's own internal Planning and Zoning committee. But then why should they on the board listen to the committee’s recommendation? After all, the committee had only studied the issue in depth.

The design that developers hoped to force upon the neighborhood is in gross noncompliance with section 7A of the Vermont/Western SNAP (Station Neighborhood Area Plan) which mandates new development to: "maintain the current prevailing scale and character of these blocks and improve the pedestrian environment." Sub-area A of the SNAP sets the limit of construction at two lots. This large single structure across three lots is the poster child of the type of development the sub-area A was designed to protect against.  It only invites future high density monoliths to what once was a neighborhood filled with garden apartments.

The developer’s argument to the GGPNC was if their variance wasn't granted, then the alternative would be a really ugly one.  Apparently the firm can only make nice designs if the buildings violate city codes. O’Grady actually urged the GGPNC board to “give them a break,” suggesting that going back and designing something nice for the neighborhood that followed planning rules would be just too expensive for a real estate development firm.

O’Grady and Mauceri smiled broadly and were first to raise their hands as they voted to support this gluttonous precedent-setting compound to be located just a stones' throw from Los Feliz Elementary School.

This action follows a long list of pro-developer voting from O’Grady and Mauceri.  These two Los Feliz newcomers call themselves green in public, but time and time again in late night GGPNC meetings, after  most stakeholders have left, they have voted to support increased development in our neighborhood.  It is still not clear how a former adult entertainment executive who once proudly boasted of bringing porn into the mainstream and his developer buddy are now in the position to vote in support of a development across the street from our elementary schools.

Voting in lockstep with the seasoned O’Grady and Mauceri were their Los Feliz Forward accolytes: newly seated GGPNC board members  Masi, Van Keuren, Nubaravacharyan, and Khanjian.

It is perhaps only luck that the motion to support the developer's massive project actually died because newly-elected NC President Ron Ostrow shockingly declined his right to vote or give an opinion. That in itself was jaw dropping.  Ostrow's unusual inaction caused a death-nail tie, demonstrating that the remaining old board members still had some ability remaining to stand up to massive, inappropriate and unwanted development.  Unfortunately, the official position that was then signed by Ostrow proclaims the GGPNC takes no position on the high density project.

It is a shame that in a matter of a few weeks the GGPNC went from opposing this type of zoning violation to having "no position", and differing to city bureaucrats. 

The logical question with respect to the GGPNC and Los Feliz Forward is: what’s next?  What sort of lucrative development project can we expect to see coming to and around Los Feliz?  And who will be there next time to stop the destruction of the character of Los Feliz?

The O’Grady and Mauceri deception machine appears well-oiled and ready to kick ass.  I just wish they would quit looking at our neighborhood like it was a wet t-shirt contest.
-----


Late word is that facing growing community opposition, the developer has withdrawn his current proposal.

Griffith Park NC parks committee meeting Monday

Be there.

PROS March 8 Agenda

Fight to make Griffith Park Holiday Light Festival a shade greener

By Stephen Box at SoapBoxLA
Photo by Militant Angelino    

Holiday Light Festival - NC's Walk!

LA's Department of Water & Power has dusted off the Holiday Light Festival decorations and is busy investing the public's money in the event that won the "Eco-Moron" award last year for its ability to drawing idling vehicles in such numbers that Griffith Park, the adjacent communities and the 5 freeway all sit in gridlock for hours each evening of the holiday season. As the Park Rangers and the Department of Transportation grapple with the traffic, the DWP claims the "Going Green" title and then proceeds to go after more of your green.

The Griffith Park Holiday Light Festival is an old tradition, dating back to Councilman John Ferraro who visited San Antonio during the holiday season and came back all enthralled with the idea of a public light festival. In hindsight, it's only too bad that he didn't visit a city with Great Streets, one with holiday lights and people walking and talking and having conversations and singing and enjoying a human-sized people based festival. Of course, it's not too late to make some changes!

The Greater Griffith Park NC, the Atwater Village NC, the Los Feliz Improvement Association, the Oaks Home Owners Association and community members representing hikers, runners, cyclists, equestrians, and folks who simply like to breath clean air when standing in the middle of the America's largest urban wilderness park have joined together to ask the DWP to simply have motorists park their cars in the Zoo parking lot, then get out and walk through the Festival. The simple move to a pedestrian based festival, with ADA accommodations, would relieve the community from the idling queue that approaches the park from the south. It seems so simple!

The DWP's Public Affairs office, very nice folks who have one of the hardest jobs imaginable, putting a shine on the DWP's policies and programs, gave this year's version of "Why you can't have what you want but here is something shiny to distract you!" presentation, again to a full house and again to well-articulated arguments for the same old vehicular based paradigm for enjoying the great outdoors.

The Bike Writers Collective objects to the DWP's Griffith Park Holiday Light Festival for a few reasons, first because it excludes cyclists from the vehicular nights based on the recommendation of the LADOT that it is too dangerous to have motor vehicles and bicycles on the same road. This becomes a principle issue since one of the basic rights cyclists claim is the right to ride on the streets of Los Angeles. The DWP claims that it is exempt from the law and can exclude cyclists which leaves cyclists charging "The DWP is trying too hard to find a legal loophole to do something absurd, prevent cyclists from riding bikes in traffic that moves so slowly, the road resembles a parking lot."

Plans are already underway for a protest ride, The Festival of Rights, which will take place on Friday, December 18. The protest ride, which gathers at the Mulholland Fountain where cyclists decorate themselves with lights, has become an annual tradition and this will be the third year (2007 and 2008) that the absurdity of a vehicular light festival at the expense of the community, the pedestrians and the cyclists will be challenged by the cycling community. Cyclist should be cautioned that the ride is not without risk, participants who elect to breath while riding will be subjected to greenhouse gases, auto emissions and noxious odors.

As for the larger issue of the "Pedestrian Friendly" event that local community leaders have been proposing, endorsing and working to bring to fruition, the DWP Commissioners, the DWP Management and Councilman Tom LaBonge have all been notified that the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council has polled the community and concluded with a resolution calling for the "complete environmental reform of the annual LADWP Light Festival in Griffith Park."

GGPNC election results announced

Punctuating the fact that democracy is often messy, it took almost six hours for the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council to select its ten "representative" seats on Saturday. By the end of the day, the new seated board members were Sara Napier (education), Jeff Gardner (recreation), Rosemary Demonte (business), Reverend Dan Hooper (religion), Nyla Arslanian (non-profit), Charlie Mims (at-large 1), Tom Wilson (at-large 2), Tor Hyams (at-large 3), Luisa Nubaravacharyan (at-large 4).

Congratulations to all winners!

The Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council includes Griffith Park in its boundaries. This makes the neighborhood council the main stewards of the entire park among community organizations. The GGPNC has a very active parks committee, the GGPNC Parks River and Open Space Committee, aka "PROS".  When you have park issues, please bring them to the PROS committee. Their next meeting is October 5th. Please see the GGPNC web site for more information: GGPNC.org

Hearing on Autry Expansion in Griffith Park Delayed

(Article courtesy Friends of the Southwest Museum who have partnered with Griffith Park advocates to protect the park's interest in the Autry's desired expansion: a proposed tripling of the Autry building size plus up to 100 additional signs and billboards, a 100' tower, new liquor license, etc. on Griffith Park land for only $1.00 per month in rent.

At this point in time, it is very disconcerting that no one is officially representing Griffith Park and the public who uses this important park land in these negotiations. Tom LaBonge, the councilman in whose district this project lies, is 100% for handing the Autry everything they want.

The Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council is the most obvious choice for a place at this negotiation table to speak for the park. It remains to be seen if a "table" even materializes as the posturing of the Autry continues.)


City Hearing Postponed as Autry Rebukes Any Negotiation for Southwest Museum

Yesterday, July 28, 2009, Board of Referred Powers Chair Janice Hahn accepted a request from Councilmember José Huizar for additional time to work on getting the Autry National Center’s Board of Directors to agree to a legally binding commitment for the Southwest Museum and Casa de Adobe in its proposed lease amendment with the City. (Tony Cardenas is the new chair of the Board of Referred Powers for 2009-10 - ed.)

Councilmember Huizar seeks such a condition to assure Autry will not simply take the Southwest Museum’s Collection to an expanded Autry museum building in Griffith Park and abandon or sell the Southwest Museum site. For this reason, Huizar has requested a continuance of the further hearing of the Autry’s expansion plan in Griffith Park until after August 31, 2009.

The reason given from his letter of request: “I have been acting in good faith to bring agreement and/or compromise to the issue at hand. However, I do not believe that the Autry has taken seriously the Board of Referred Power’s instructions to work out with me options for a legally binding document. The Autry Center has essentially threatened to abandon its expansion project at Griffith Park altogether if I continue to pursue with them any document which legally binds them to its commitments made to me and to the City of Los Angeles.”

Councilmember Huizar is to be applauded for his leadership as he has been working diligently these past 4 weeks. As the first elected official to be publicly granted a meeting directly with the Board of Directors in regards to this issue, he now has first hand knowledge of the Autry decision-maker’s position.

Our Coalition was asked by his staff to select just two people to represent the entire 70 organizations and many individuals to meet with the Councilmember. Mark Kenyon and I participated in two meetings with the Councilmember to discuss the longstanding position of the Coalition: a legally binding agreement and a fully functional Southwest Museum. (And submitted to him supporting documents.)

At the second meeting on Thursday, July 23rd, we agreed with the Councilmember that the three key items needed were:

1) legally binding commitment that could be accomplished in various forms

2) 12,500 sq ft. of exhibition space for the Southwest Collection at the historic museum facility (or Option B from the Brenda Levin study)

3) a timeline for re-opening

Just last evening, CM Huizar invited 11 organizational representatives from Council District 14 to a meeting in which he shared this information and a newly adopted resolution from the Autry Board that opposes any negotiation with the City that would address the issues for the Southwest Museum and Casa de Adobe.

We strongly urge you to read these documents, available at our website: http://www.friendsofthesouthwestmuseum.com/AutryBoardResoLtrBoRP072409.pdf

There was overwhelming agreement and support at this meeting for the Councilmember to continue to pursue a legally binding commitment and the exhibition space allocation of Option B. And, everyone one was willing to support him in this endeavor.

This is a fast moving train. I immediately requested that the Councilmember attend and talk with our entire Coalition as soon as possible to confirm with all of us that these are his goals too and to allow everyone concerned to be a part of the solution.

We are working with City staff as to what the necessary next action items will include. Please be ready to participate as you have already been doing in support of the Coalition’s position all these years. For our community, for the future of our children and for our own history and common heritage that is the Southwest Museum, I thank you for being devoted to community service.

Nicole Possert, Chair