[CityWatch] NBC Universal Project: All Wrong

NBC Universal Project:

Example of All that’s Wrong with LA Planning Process

CityWatch, Mar 1, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 17

NBC Universal’s Evolution project is moving forward in a City of LA planning process that is a clear demonstration of all that is wrong with planning and land use policy in the City of Los Angeles. The developer driven process starts with an attack on the already low standards that purportedly protect the people of LA and then continue with exceptions and variances that result in a full assault on the local community.

Developer funded Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), traffic mitigation plans, and community benefit proposals all create a Kumbaya message that is in stark contrast to the simple reality; our infrastructure is collapsing, our streets are congested, emergency services are already challenged, and our environment is choking.

Through it all, the people we send to City Hall stand by and when pressured are only able to come up with one objection, “We need more time!”

NBC Universal’s Evolution project is positioned as an upgrade to existing film production facilities while the simple reality is this, it is the creation of a new residential community on a 391-acre property bordered by the LA River and the Hollywood Hills.

In support of the project comes a 39,000 page EIR, a document so large that it serves to highlight the implausible “hugeness” of the project that is being shoehorned into a patch of land, “all without expanding the current property.”

As Councilmember Tom LaBonge stood before the Planning Commission and asked for an extension of the hearing process until after the March 8 election, organizations from all directions stood by with well reasoned and researched commentary that falls on deaf ears.

The Studio City Neighborhood Council submitted a 98 page review of the Evolution project that comprehensively reviewed the project and concluded “The DEIR does not adequately address the impacts on the community from the proposed Project.” Anyone who has tried to navigate Barham during rush hour knows that the impact on the surrounding communities is already beyond capacity.

The Transit Coalition submitted an analysis of the Evolution project’s transit, bike, and pedestrian accessibility. It challenged the project’s claim of a modal shift away from private vehicles and called for “important modifications to meet the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) standard for less than significant impacts.” Anyone who has tried to walk up the Universal hill or navigate the incomplete river bike path knows that the projected mode shift is simply wishful thinking unsubstantiated by reality.

The Friends of Griffith Park analyzed the Evolution project’s impact on the surrounding environment, including the Santa Monica Mountains Range and the Los Angeles River Corridor, and concluded by stating “the scope of the project must be reduced dramatically in order to fully comply with CEQA mitigation requirements.”

Anyone who has ever stood on top of the Mt. Lee knows that the existing ecosystem is incompatible with any further development assault.

This cry for help is an indictment of the process for three reasons:

1. City Planning’s current cost-recovery process simply allows developers to shop for the solutions and decisions that serve them, forcing residents to fight an uphill battle against a ticking clock as LA’s soft City Plan fails protecting the character and personality of our neighborhoods.
2. The Mayor and the City Council’s laissez-faire attitude to development run amok is a complete abdication of their mandate to develop, implement, and enforce a comprehensive, long range General Plan that establishes purposes, policies and programs for the development of the City of Los Angeles.
3. Neighborhood councils, advocacy organizations, and community groups have risen to the occasion, demonstrating with their comprehensive and professional analysis of the Evolution project that LA has become a DIY city, one where our commitment to the future of LA comes from the neighborhood, not from City Hall.

The people of LA have the right to expect a well-planned, well-funded city that operates based on standards that the people of LA can depend on.

Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. 
He can be reached at:   Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net

Sad attempt at smearing Box indicates real fear in incumbent LaBonge

How scared must Tom LaBonge be of Stephen Box?

The answer seems to be "a ton", and it's really kind of shocking.

Most newspapers won't publish smear material within a few days of an election, knowing full-well that smear is the obvious intent.  Yet today's LA Times published a pathetic smear piece about Stephen, dragging up some alleged old liens which have been resolved but are apparently not off someone's books. The Times not only published very late, but they held the story - and I use the term story very loosely - until election day.

Credit: Life.com

Only one individual with a vested interest in the outcome has the power to make the Times publish this non-issue this late in the game, and that would be the councilmember. This comes on the heels of LaBonge's campaign incorrectly calling both Box and O'Grady 'republicans' in phone solicitations and email from one of his very own council aides, and in at least one article with quotes from LaBonge insinuating that the fact that his challengers immigrated to the United States makes them somehow less suitable for the City Council.

Shame on Tom. He and I have had occasion to interact for nearly a decade now, and I've never known him to be this much of an idiot and a coward. He must really be scared.

As for the alleged liens, they're a non-issue. How many of us have crap on record that we weren't even aware of? That's exactly why everyone should check their credit reports from all three credit agencies annually, just for starters. A person in northern Cal with my same name led to a year of me being harassed by their creditors not too terribly long ago. It took an awful lot of of my personal time to convince these people that the fact that we had different social security numbers did, in fact, mean we were two different, entirely unrelated individuals.

But I digress.

Smear-mongers will say that a paper trail of old liens adds up to fiscal irresponsibility. They're dead-wrong. In reality, the exact opposite is the case. Old liens that were paid off shows that a person took full responsibility for debts owed during what may have been difficult financial times in their lives. That takes true strength of character, and  
Stephen Box has exactly that - strength of character.

Difficult financial times ares something a lot of people have experienced lately, perhaps for the very first time in their lives. Painting them all with a brush of 'irresponsibility' would be wrong. But then, doing the right thing seems to go out the window where Tom LaBonge and politics is concerned.

Today, vote for someone who has the strength of character to do the right thing when times get tough: 

Vote Stephen Box for CD 4.



Additional 11:30am:   Neon Tommy has a piece about the 'robot call' that claims LaBonge's opponents including Stephen Box are 'Tea Baggers'.

On LaBonge's Watch, the price of Cahuenga Peak went up a factor of 10

Over the weekend, a tidy summary of fiscal malfeasance related to the purchase of Cahuenga Peak and attributed to Tom LaBonge appeared as a comment by "Informant" on Ron Kaye's blog.

Although "Informant" is incognito, we know that Informant's summary is indeed the chain of events that transpired with the bloated selling price of Cahuenga Peak. However, we're not so sure about the fraud alleged by Informant regarding the "Save the Peak" campaign.

We've mentioned the insane increase in the cost of the Cahuenga Peak property before on this very blog:

• The City could have purchased Cahuenga Peak for $1.6 million, in 2002.  On LaBonge's watch.  
• Yet in 2010 it ended up costing us $12.5 million. A factor of nearly 10 higher. On LaBonge's watch.

That in itself is enough come tomorrow to vote LaBonge straight out of office.

Here's the comment as originally published:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

By Informant on March 6, 2011 3:26 PM

Someone mentioned the Hollywood Sign Fraud. This matter has been turned over to the authorities. Labonge knows it was a fraud, but he continues to make it. LaBonge is a fool hardy person indeed.

This story is so long -- I will try to be brief.

Until LaBonge came into the picture in 2002, the Cahuenga Peak (which is northwest of Mt Lee where the H Sign is located) was unsaleable. After 9-11, Mt. Lee with the H Sign and with the sensitive telecommunications on top became matters of national security. Cahuenga Peak is 140 feet higher than Mt. Lee so a rocket launcher could easily cripple LA's telecommunications, e.g. the LAPD. That was a good reason to not sell Cahuenga Peak.

Nonetheless, in 2002 LaBonge allowed the Cahuenga Peak to be sold to a Chicago real estate speculator for $1.6 M who was free to sell to anyone in the world.

Yes, we were fortunate that the land was not resold. In 2010, LaBonge proposed to buy the Chauenga Peak for $12.5 M. The peak still was of national security interest, but that never bothered LaBonge. The only possible buyers were the City, the County, the state, or the feds. No one in their right mind would allow the land to be sold to just anyone. That strict national security limitation on the land surely held down the price. But no, not for LaBonge. None of the appraisals mentioned national security. Thus, LaBonge agreed to pay the developer $12.5 M.

Here comes the fraud. LaBonge could not find enough dupes to pay $12.5 M for land that was basically worthless. Then the Bait and Switch Scam. They draped huge SAVE the PEAK cloths over the Hollywood Sign and starting a world wide fraud that the Hollywood Sign was in danger of being torn down or and/or having a large development around it. That was fraud upon fraud upon fraud.

Cahuenga Peak is an entirely different mountain. There was ZERO danger to the Hollywood Sign in any way. To the extent any homes could be built on the peak to the northwest of Mt. Lee, one might see one or two homes on the ridge. Of course, one can see huge telecommunications towers right above the H Sign.

LaBonge then involved school children in the Bait and Switch scam by having nearby elementary schools support the SAVE the PEAK Bait and Switch Scam. Most the kids knew that Cahuenga Peak is one mountain and that Mt. Lee is another place altogether. It was like telling people they are buying a Cadillac and delivering Pinto.

But the developer, Fox River Financial, made out like a bandit.

For a while, LaBonge had taken down his postings about the SAVE the PEAK. Now he is desperately trying to have 15 years in office, his lie about Saving the Hollywood Sign comes out again. The truth is that the Hollywood Sign was never in any danger whatsoever. LaBonge could not raise the money to buy an additional 140 acres so he perpetrated a worldwide fraud to raise the money from people who did not know the difference between the Cahuenga Peak and Mt. Lee.

People have known about LaBonge's Bait and Switch scam for almost one year, but his opponents did not use it in their campaigns. Now, LaBonge himself is promoting his fraud as a reason to re-elect him. Since LaBonge has introduced his Bait and Switch scam into the campaign, people have the right to present the truth.

[RonKaye] Desperate LaBonge Dirties Himself with Last-Minute Smear Campaign

Desperate Tom LaBonge Dirties Himself with Last-Minute Smear Campaign
 
by Ron Kaye   March 5, 2011   9:40 PM 

I was going to let this go because last-minute smear tactics on the weekend before voters go to the polls is distasteful, a violation of journalistic ethics that I've only seen violated once in the mainstream media when the LA Times exposed Arnold Schwarzenegger's sex life at the end of the Gray David recall campaign.

But Tom LaBonge, who has been whining to everybody in City Hall for weeks about how he might lose Tuesday, has gone too far. No more Mr. Nice Guy - he's that desperate.

He's resorted on the campaign's final weekend to robo-calls to thousands of his constituents using Gov. Jerry Brown and former Mayor Richard Riordan to falsely defame challenger Stephen Box.

There is no tax lien against Box and LaBonge is not the only Democrat involved in the campaigns by Box and Tomas O'Grady. Besides, it's a non-partisan race.

Now I find in my email a blast from Carolyn Ramsay, LaBonge's deputy chief of staff, who without identifying her role on the city payroll, is urging voters to re-elect her boss (Ramsay-LaBonge.rtf)

I can't help but wonder how many of the email addresses she sent this to were acquired in her official capacity.

She argues that her boss isn't responsible for public services being slashed and the city being broke, which may have a small amount of truth in it since he rarely understands what he's voting on.

She ends her email by saying, "Vote for Tom LaBonge because Tom LaBonge works for us" -- actually, she works for Tom LaBonge is more like it.

If you want to know who to vote for, you just need to watch this short video clip of the single best moment of the seven races for City Council seats, Stephen Box's great "Titanic" closing statement at a forum last week:

Listen to Box, LaBonge and O'Grady in KPCC debate

Last minute debate with all three candidates for CD 4 held by KPCC is available here for listening.

It's especially enlightening when Patt Morrison tries to get lightweight O'Grady to actually answer a question.

LaBonge nervous - uses illegal image in campaign flyer

This last-minute panic mailer by Tom LaBonge illegally uses officers in uniform in his campaign literature. The Ethics Commission should be pretty interested in this one.

So what's with the abuse of authority? Guessing Tom's feeling just a wee bit nervous.

Credit RonKayeLA.com

For a Better Future, Vote BOX FOR CD4

Taking the wheel

Griffith Park Wayist endorses Stephen Box for CD 4

Probably obvious, but we're thrilled to endorse Stephen Box for CD 4.

Stephen Box understands how the City works better than most current councilmembers. Clearly more than both of his opponents, as well.

If you need more, check out all this.

The LA Times CD 4 endorsement - what it's really about

The Los Angeles Times finally got around to publishing its complete list of endorsements  in the upcoming March 8th election.

The section for CD 4 goes like this:

"Vying to succeed him are candidates who show promise but come with drawbacks. Stephen Box has valuable experience with the city's neighborhood council system, but he's so immersed in the minutiae of city government that it's hard to understand what his larger vision consists of. "

This part of the Times' endorsement may be code for 'we don't want someone who really understands how the City works.'  If that's the best the Times comes up with in their dismissal of Stephen Box's proven activism over the past half-decade, then they need some new journalists. But then, a lot of people think the Times needs a lot of new... well.... erm... everything.

"Tomas O'Grady, meanwhile, is energetic and likable..."

Unless you've witnessed his world-class temper in person.

"...but his proposals for the budget — cutting the salaries and budgets of council members, making selective cuts elsewhere — are more symbolic than meaningful.

"Nevertheless, O'Grady's background in business, devotion to environmental issues and hard work as an activist in L.A. Unified schools make him the most appealing alternative to LaBonge. The Times endorses O'Grady."

There's a question - what exactly is O'Grady's background in business? No one ever really says. We'd love to see some detailed disclosure in this regard.

As for the devotion to environmental issues, O'Grady is an environmental lightweight, seemingly happy with playing Don Quixote to leaf blowers (which are already illegal - get it enforced) and planting trees in plain sight where others will be certain to take note of his volunteer work, rather than fighting any number of truly hard enviro battles. Like this, for instance. Or this. Or even this.

Neighborhood tours showing off how green one anothers' solar-powered hot tubs are, or teaching classes in grey water uses does not a hard-core enviro make.

In reality, the LA Times endorsement of O'Grady is likely far more about not completely adopting LA Clean Sweep's slate than it is about O'Grady as a candidate. LA Clean Sweep has gained amazing amount of political traction in the relatively short amount of time the political action committee has existed. The Times' choices for CD 6 (Rich Goodman), CD 8 (Bernard Parks) and 14 (Rudy Martinez) are LA Clean Sweep candidates.

Coming from a paper that has a bureau located a few doors away from the Mayor and publishes City Hall press releases almost wholesale, going with even a few LA Clean Sweep candidates is really putting themselves out there. It's surprising they went that far. They did call LaBonge a legendary "pothole politician", so that in itself makes the endorsement worth a read.


So Stephen Box is endorsed by the Daily News, and Tomas O'Grady is endorsed by the LA Times.  Looks like career politician Tom LaBonge has a lot of well-earned trouble on his hands.


Update: Here's the LA Weekly's take. Some of it sounds familiar.

Draft CRA dissolution language published

Los Angeles's Community Redevelopment Agency  redirects billions of funding from what's left of our decimated core city services into fraud-riddled pet projects that directly benefit campaign donors and political friends in this town. 

They pay themselves pretty well while they're at it, too.

Yesterday, Governor Brown moved one step closer to abolishing this eminent domain-wielding fiscal monstrosity in Los Angeles as the Department of Finance published the draft language for its dissolution.

(2) Beginning with 2012-13 fiscal year, allocate these funds according to the existing property tax allocation, except for enterprise special districts, to make the funds available for cities, counties, special districts, school and community college districts to provide core governmental services. As a result of these actions, it is estimated that, by fiscal year 2012-13, these local entities will receive $1.9 billion per year in new resources to use for their core priorities.

(3) Require a successor entity to settle the affairs of the redevelopment agencies.

(4) Require the protection of contractual rights by successor agencies, which will be required to retire redevelopment agency debts in accord with existing payment schedules. No existing contractual obligations will be impaired.

The Department of Finance's link to an MS Word version of the full document is here.

The California Eminent Domain Report - a great source of current and technical information about Eminent Domain issues - has a .PDF of the full text of the draft language here.


Remember who supports Kelo Eminent Domain unchecked throughout all of Los Angeles, and who doesn't when you go to the polls to vote for our next City Council representative on March 8th.

CRA: Take the Vine Street project and shovel it!

As the fraud-riddled Vine Avenue CRA project is advanced to City Council for a vote for the 13th -- yes, 13th! time --  we like everything in this Stephen Box presser.

Especially the first and last sentences.
-----------

STEPHEN BOX JOINS FRUSTRATED COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS AT
L.A. HOUSING COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Box points to CRA and calls for a Los Angeles City Prosecutor.

“It is time to have a prosecutor’s office that will finally represent the people”

L.A.’s City Hall: At the 8:30 meeting of the Housing Committee Stephen Box stood up and called upon the City of Los Angeles to create the position of City Prosecutor that would finally represent the people. Pointing to the growing mountain of skepticism surrounding CRA projects, such as 1601 Vine, Box declared a need for the people of L.A. to have legal representation.

“The state has an Attorney General and State Counsel, the county has a District Attorney and County Counsel, but the city of L.A. only has a City Attorney, someone who represents the City Hall, but nobody to represent the people of L.A.,” Box explains. “Who’s the people’s lawyer?”

The need for representation is acutely clear as the CRA’s 1601 Vine project appears on yet another City Hall agenda, this time at the Housing, Community and Economic Development Committee. Box pointedly explains, “This has been through the City Council 12 times.”

Citing a failure of leadership, Box detailed how the property at 1601 Vine set in motion a self-swindling pattern where the City of LA appraised a property at $4 million and then paid $1.45 million over the appropriate price. The pattern continues as the CRA turns around and offers the property to the original owner for $825,000. This gift of $4.6 million in public funds amounts plus the other expenses will result in the CRA spending more on this project than on the W Hollywood, becoming just another sweetheart deal at the expense of tax payers.

Calling this project an example of the inherent issues with the CRA that are the cause of growing frustration with stakeholders and planning watchdog groups, Box explains that putting CRA money back into the local government is one of the immediate steps that can be taken to address the budget crisis.

The CRA’s own Board Vice-Chair, Madeleine Janice, expressed her concerns over 1601 by saying that it is the “poster child for abolishing the CRA.” Box agrees and says the appearance of wrongdoing warrants a thorough investigation and establishing a City Prosecutor should be the first step in ensuring open and transparent oversight in City Hall. This and other campaign themes are continuing to resonate with neighborhood voters in his race for Council District 4.

Box’s call to action is clear. What is unclear is if the City Council will finally put the voice of the community first and take this "shovel-ready" project, put it in the ground and bury it!

LFIA Forum: You Are There

We've had some good comments analyzing the CD 4 candidates' fora so far.  Now it's your turn to judge for yourself.

YOU ARE THERE - minus the honorable Walter Kronkite.

Box hits campaign funding milestone

Riding a major wave of campaign momentum that includes a major endorsement by the LA Daily News, Stephen Box became the first CD 4 challenger to raise the amount needed to receive Matching Funds this week. 

More than $50,000 in funds raised, spent or in cash-on-hand is the magic number to receive Matching Funds for a Los Angeles City Council candidate in a regular election, or $25,000 in a a primary nominating or special primary election.

Flip-Flop! O'Grady can't make up his mind on the CRA

Is the CRA in Los Angeles truly a good thing? Or should it be tightly controlled or even absorbed by the State?

CD 4 candidate Tomas O'Grady can't make up his mind.

In an in-depth questionaire sent to CD 4 candidates by CityWatch, O'Grady not only supports the CRA in principle, but he actually supports the CRA having all of their current boundary restrictions spontaneously removed by approving the infamous AB2531.

AB2531 is the State bill about only Los Angeles that no one in Los Angeles besides politicians had even heard of until hours before Arnold Schwarzenegger was due to sign it. Following swift public response, Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Tom LaBonge had voted yes earlier in the year to move AB2531 forward to a State legislature vote.

The CD 4 candidates' responses from the questionnaire on AB2531 are indeed telling:

Question #4: Do you support bringing Kelo eminent domain to all of Los Angeles?

Under Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), a city may take property and give it to another private person for that entity’s personal profit. Traditional eminent domain forbids the property going to another person for personal profit.

CRA eminent domain is Kelo eminent domain as the properties go to private developers who reap the profits.

LaBonge:
LaBonge supported AB 2531 which would have brought Kelo eminent domain to every parcel in Los Angles. His response today is that he wants to review the matter with the City Attorney. He opposes “unilateral eminent domain,” but there is no explanation of what he means about unilateral eminent domain, so at best his answer appears to be evasive. One would think that since he supported Kelo eminent domain, he would have some thoughts to share with the voters.

O’Grady:
While he opposed the secretive manner in which AB 2531 was sprung upon the public, Mr. O’Grady would support a new AB 2531 to bring Kelo eminent domain to all of Los Angeles.

Box:
Mr. Box vehemently opposes expansion of eminent domain powers and would oppose any attempt to bring Kelo eminent domain to Los Angeles. He believes as a matter of principle that the government should not take one man’s property and give it to another private citizen.

O'Grady's response to the CRA-intensive questionnaire were characterized by author Richard Lee Abrams thusly:  'Mr. O’Grady made long, thoughtful responses', so one is led to believe the candidate was sincere in his thoughtful, pro-CRA responses.

Yet when opponent Stephen Box steps up and sides with Governor Brown in taking the almighty CRA down a notch or two - Flip-Flop! O'Grady changes his mind.  Suddenly he's a self-proclaimed critic of the CRA.

Don't think your property could be affected by a CRA land grab?  Just look next door -  the CRA with Tom LaBonge's blessing just postponed the ongoing action of declaring parts of Atwater Village blighted while the Governor works out the agency's future.

LA Daily News endorses Stephen Box for CD 4

It's all good.

-----------

Daily News editorial: Stephen Box for Council District 4

COUNCILMAN Tom LaBonge has dedicated his professional life to the city of Los Angeles. Through four decades he has worked in City Hall in some capacity, starting with Mayor Tom Bradley's Youth Council - all the while cheering on the city he loves. His extraordinary service ought to be commended, but it doesn't make him the best candidate in the race for Council District 4, which stretches from Silver Lake to North Hollywood.

The municipal structure of Los Angeles is currently in a crisis unlike any time in recent history. Budget shortages are forcing city officials to rethink every function, every service delivery method and every expenditure the city makes. Without fresh ideas and new eyes among the policymakers, the city could well fold in on itself - arbitrarily cutting until no municipal service functions well.

Though LaBonge clearly has a deep commitment and historical understanding of L.A. and CD 4, he hasn't offered any evidence during his campaign - or during his decade on the council - that he can help the city reinvent itself during this watershed moment.

By comparison, challenger Stephen Box has.

Box, a community activist with broad-based grass-roots support in the district, has fresh ideas about how to make the city work for its residents, an excitement about shaking up the status quo at City Hall and strong, though rough leadership skills - the kind of which are in serious shortage around the horseshoe in council chambers.

Rough is the right word to describe Box's style. Though he's clearly intelligent and thoroughly steeped in the mechanics of city politics and policy, his biggest obstacle is communicating his message and his platform. Instead of methodically laying out a plan of action, his conversations leapfrog from idea to idea. It's as if he has so much to say about transportation or the Universal City development or transparency or city customer service or whatever that it bottlenecks in his brain before it can reach his mouth.

If he can't overcome this in the weeks leading up to the March 8 election or during the subsequent runoff election (assuming he can force the well-known LaBonge into a runoff), he won't be able to turn on voters who are reluctant to back a relative unknown.

What's unfortunate is that Box seems to have no problem on that score with written communication. As a contributing writer to CityWatch, an Internet publication that focuses on City Hall, and on his own blog SoapBoxLA.com, Box expresses himself cogently and authoritatively. On his website and in campaign literature he precisely lays out his four ideas to improve L.A.: connectivity of government departments and agencies, a comprehensive General Plan, realigning budget priorities and re-tooling the way the city interacts with its customers. He must work to bring that same clarity of thought to his verbal communication. It's not enough to have great ideas; one must be able to articulate them.

We think that's a minor flaw in an otherwise qualified candidate. Box started his long road to this race as a bicycle activist, a vocation which he came to as a result of a bicycling accident he had with a MTA bus. The resulting frustration with getting the governmental runaround politicized him and led him deep into community activism. He's worked with City Hall and neighborhood councils and the Mayor's Office to create a more bike-friendly city and is on the board of a number of civic groups.

Los Angeles needs some fresh leadership. That's why we strongly encourage voters to pick Stephen Box for CD 4.
-------

Carry the momentum forward by going to the Box for CD 4 campaign web site.

Check out the CD 4 candidates at candidate forums

Greater Wilshire NC CANDIDATE FORUM

with Stephen Box,

Tomas O'Grady & Tom LaBonge

Wed, February 9, 7pm
WILSHIRE EBELL THEATRE
4400 Wilshire Blvd., LA CA
www.greaterwilshire.org

---

Silver Lake NC CANDIDATE FORUM

with Stephen Box,

Tomas O'Grady & Tom LaBonge

Thu, February 10, 7pm
Silver Lake Community Church 

2930 Hyperion Ave, LA CA
www.silverlakenc.org

---

Los Feliz Improvement Association
CANDIDATE FORUM

with Stephen Box,

Tomas O'Grady & Tom LaBonge

Wed, February 16, 6pm
THE AUTRY
4700 Western Heritage Way
Los Angeles, CA 90027-1462
www.lfia.com

---

Greater Griffith Park NC
CANDIDATE FORUM

with Stephen Box,

Tomas O'Grady & Tom LaBonge

Tue, March 1st, 6pm

JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL

3939 Tracy Street

Los Angeles, CA 90027

www.ggpnc.org

---

Park La Brea Residents Association

 CANDIDATE FORUM

with Stephen Box,

Tomas O'Grady & Tom LaBonge

(the forum will also feature a presentation on the ballot measures

by the League of Women Voters)

Wed, March 2nd, 6pm

PARK LA BREA ACTIVITY CENTER THEATRE

Forum is open to non-residents

475 S. Curson Avenue

Los Angeles CA 90036

www.plbra.us

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.

Box joins Governor in CRA opposition

PRESS RELEASE

CONTACT: Claudia Vázquez

(213) 394-5321

COUNCIL CANDIDATE BOX AND COMMUNITY LEADERS JOIN GOVERNOR BROWN

IN ASSAILING LA’S CRA FINANCIAL SHELL GAME

In a light drizzle and speaking before news cameras and reporters, Stephen Box, candidate for City Council representing the 4th District, was joined by about 50 community advocates, neighborhood activists and community watch group members in assailing LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) process, the stashing of nearly 1 billion dollars in public funds, and cited incumbent City Councilmember Tom LaBonge’s special relationship with out-of-town developers and political cronies with deep ties to City Hall. 


“LA is in a massive budget crisis, facing shortfalls for vital services - police, fire, street and road repair - while the CRA hides $930 million in redevelopment funds in plain view, money which could be used to meet these vital needs,” Box said.


“We join Governor Brown in challenging the wisdom and judgment of the City Hall politicians, including the incumbent, Mr. LaBonge, who either don’t recognize this fundamental absurdity in fiduciary responsibility,” Box continued, “ or simply don’t care about the sacrifices and hardship the CRA imposes on the people of LA by hiding money during this budget crisis.” 


“The dozens of people here today represent thousands of fourth district residents and organizations citywide who join me in demanding an end to this financial shell game.”


The press event was held at the corner of Garfield Place and Hollywood Boulevard, in front of a 1.8 acre vacant lot wrapped in chain link fencing. Local residents have fought for years to turn the site into a city park for so long that the land is commonly referred to as “Garfield Park.” Council Member LaBonge, who has held his seat for a decade, has consistently sided with developers who wish to use the public’s money to build commercial development instead of a community park there.


Box is running for LA’s City Council, representing District 4, which includes North Hollywood, Toluca Lake, the Hollywood Hills, Mid-City, the Miracle Mile, Hancock Park, Larchmont Village, Los Feliz, Silver Lake, and North Atwater Village.  

PAID FOR BY BOX FOR CITY COUNCIL 2011, FPPC #1328214

Box for City Council 2011 5629 Hollywood Blvd. POB 44 Hollywood, CA 90028

(323) 739-4BOX - www.StephenBox.com -  box4citycouncil@gmail.com
Box for City Council 2011, Campaign ID#I1328214

O'Grady Stonewalled in CD 4

 

Just who did the Stonewall Democratic Club endorse for CD 4 at Monday night's meeting?

Glen Dake, a past Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commissioner, says this on the Twitter:

GlenDake 
Stonewall Democratic Club voted 2 endorse Tom LaBonge for re-election in CD4! People say he gives great contituent service.

But Tomas O' Grady claims this on his campaign blog: Stonewall Democrats Political Committee Recommend O’Grady for Endorsement


They're likely both right, but ultimately the official club ignored their political committee's recommendation and chose Tom LaBonge, once again showing a lack of real support for O'Grady.

Unknown if Stephen Box - a very enviro fellow -  was on the radar at the Stone Wall.