Gary Slossberg For LA City Council District 13

Mayoral race is worth a debate

By Steve Lopez
January 28, 2009

If I could have had it my way, Rick Caruso would be running for mayor of Los Angeles. I don’t know if he would have won, and I don’t know if I would have voted for him. But I love a good fight, and Caruso is rich enough to have raised the small hairs on the back of Antonio Villaraigosa’s neck.

Caruso took a pass, though, realizing it’s lots easier being mayor of The Grove and Americana on Brand, where the trolleys run on time and there are no potholes. And that’s why, on Tuesday morning, I found myself in the Carthay Circle living room of Walter Moore.

Moore is a little-known lawyer with no experience in politics. But that hasn’t stopped him from taking on the mayor. This is Moore’s second time on the ballot with Villaraigosa, a politician he finds so irredeemable he can’t stop himself from nipping at his ankles.

It is fair to say Villaraigosa is not losing any sleep over the threat. Moore has very little money, very little name recognition and very little support. So the Villaraigosa camp acts as if Moore is invisible, ignoring his plea for a debate. Ace Smith, Villaraigosa’s campaign manager, told The Times that Moore is simply not a serious candidate.

“We’re not going to debate Lyndon LaRouche, either,” said Smith, referring to the former presidential candidate who was viewed by many as somewhat of a kook, you might say.

Excuse me, but isn’t that a little arrogant and uncalled for? Does Villaraigosa honestly believe he’s performed so brilliantly as mayor that he shouldn’t have to answer to his challengers?

Sure, Moore can’t match Villaraigosa’s purse. But he has collected roughly $200,000 in donations, making him the only one of several obscure candidates to come anywhere near qualifying for matching funds.

Without a debate, however, his only hope of getting any attention is to paint “Moore for Mayor” on top of a car, pay someone to hijack it and call the TV news stations.

So how does Moore feel about the shabby treatment by his rival? “I don’t feel outclassed,” Moore said, noting that he’s a Princeton man with a law degree from Georgetown. And he passed the bar on his first try, unlike a certain mayor who came up short not once, not twice, not three times, but four times, before giving up the dream.

“It’s not that hard,” Moore whispered of the bar exam, as if telling a secret.

Not that Moore comes without warts. In fact, he is best known for a thorny and divisive issue.

Remember Jamiel’s Law? He wrote it.

The petition, which fell far short of the signatures required to qualify for the ballot, was named for Los Angeles High football player Jamiel Shaw II, who was gunned down last March.

The alleged assailant was a Latino gang member and illegal immigrant who happened to have been released a day earlier from county jail, where he had been held on a weapons charge out of Culver City.

Moore teamed with the victim’s family in an attempt to overturn Special Order 40, an LAPD policy that bars officers from routinely questioning people about their immigration status. Moore told me he understands the desire for work-starved immigrants to come here illegally, but he thinks Order 40 makes Los Angeles a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants bent on crime.

He has a point, but there are more than a few problems with his argument. What we need is national immigration reform followed by strict enforcement, and that’s a federal matter. And, as LAPD Chief Bill Bratton argued, abolishing Order 40 would scare off illegal immigrants whom police rely on for information about criminal activity.

Moore, if you ask me, also goes off the rails with the assertion on his campaign website that Los Angeles is “turning into a Third World dump.” But in person, his arguments are less strident and somewhat more nuanced, and for every thoroughly wrong-headed thought, he’s got two or three decent if incomplete ones.

There should be parks where there are now parking lots, he said, with the parking moved underground. Parking lanes should be eliminated on major thoroughfares and replaced by rapid bus routes. “Subway to the Sea”? Don’t hold your breath, Moore said, because it’ll only be seen by those of us “who have the life spans of redwoods.”

He called the mayor’s solar energy initiative “a vague plan to come up with a plan.” He would derail questionable community redevelopment projects and use the money to hire more cops. He’d stop subsidies and other giveaways to millionaire developers downtown and elsewhere. He’d abolish gang prevention programs run by ex-gangsters. And he wouldn’t allow advertisers to wrap buildings in vinyl ads that block exits.

“How stupid is that?” he asked, going on to say the mayor wasted months of valuable time on a disastrous school takeover bid and then spent far too many weeks on the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton.

If the mayor has so much time for silly photo ops, Moore argued, “why can’t he give me 60 minutes for a debate? Do people want more density or less? Do they want more police or less? Do they want Jamiel’s Law? If people disagree with me, then so be it. But let’s debate it.”

Moore said he’s down to his last dollar after investing in hats, lawn signs, bumper stickers and radio ads. He’s ignored by the media because he has no money, and he has no money because he’s ignored by the media. A debate, he said, is his only chance.

Look, I’m not saying I’d vote for Moore. But has Villaraigosa done so well that he should waltz his way to a second term unchecked?

I say we deserve a debate. I’m happy to moderate, by the way, and Moore said he’s ready to joust with Villaraigosa any time and anywhere.

So what do you say, readers? Shall we put it to a vote?

Do your civic duty and go to www.latimes.com/lopezdebate to make your voice heard. The future of a great city is at stake.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Every week I cull the newspapers, blogs, cable talk shows and radio blowhards for the latest crop of bad news on the economy. This week, there’s plenty to talk about. Last month, the unemployment rate hit 7.2%, up from 4.9% just a year ago. We’re on a pace to hit 10% by the end of the year.

Think about that: one in ten people without a job. And that doesn’t even count the people who have just given up, taken themselves out of the job market. These are people who have moved back in with their parents, tightened their belts as their households downgrade from two incomes to one, or hit the street or homeless shelters.

Just last week, Caterpillar announced it was eliminating 5,000 jobs; Home Depot said it would cut 2% of its workforce, or 7,000 jobs; Sprint, Texas Instruments and General Motors all sent out thousands of pink slips. Even Microsoft is letting 5,000 employees go.

Last year, the U.S. lost 2.6 million jobs. It could lose another 2 million in just the first half of 2009.

What can anyone do to fix this mess? After the inauguration, the satirical newspaper The Onion captured the present moment with its headline: “Black Man Gets Worst Job in the World.” Why would anyone want to take responsibility for this train wreck?

Well, luckily for President Obama, the entire weight of the problem will not be carried on his shoulders. Case in point: On a little stretch of Santa Monica Boulevard, in East Hollywood, between Vermont and Virgil, stands a clutch of small shops with handmade signs and a distinctly local clientele. Just this week – despite the news that consumer confidence is as low as it’s been since they began tracking these things in 1967 – a local entrepreneur opened up a small grocery store.

I walk past the place every day on my way to and from the subway. I watched, day after day, as workers laid tile, painted the walls, installed the light fixtures and, finally, stocked the shelves.

What an expression of hope and confidence this is. What a repudiation of fear and isolation. Circuit City may be closing its doors, but the Santa Monica Grocery is open for business.

This morning, as I walked past on my way to work, the store was open. Customers roamed the aisles looking for things they need: laundry detergent, eggs, milk, bread. Out of the corner of my eye, in my rush to make my train, I noticed a small sign in the storefront window: “Gary Slossberg for City Council.”

Ahhh … . Know hope.

Written by Stephen Box, Hollywood Resident and Bike Activist http://SoapBoxLA.blogspot.com

I’m a frequent visitor to City Hall, attending Commission meetings, Committee meetings and City Council meetings and I take quite seriously our right to speak up, to participate and to advise our leadership on the issues that are important to me.

Most recently I attended City Council when the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights came up for endorsement, when the City’s new parking policies came up for review and when the Neighborhood Council File Motion issue came up for approval.

On the first occasion, I attended the City Council session to speak in favor of the CBR and, as the co-author, to respond to some of the anticipated debate from the Councilmembers. There was plenty of debate and lots of discussion but when it came time for public comment, City council Pro Tem Wendy Greuel acknowledged my speaker card but declined to allow me to speak, pointing out that I had already spoken on the issue in a Committee meeting. Ah well, the motion to endorse passed so I left pleased that at least I was able to witness the victory, even if I wasn’t allowed to participate.

On the second occasion, I attended the City Council, hoping to speak in favor of greater outreach to Neighborhood Councils when the City and its Departments are implementing policies and projects that affect our communities. Again, there was much debate and a significant amount of discussion along with obscure references to the Red Line and Marshall High School and all sorts of nonsense. When it came time for public comment, Council President Eric Garcetti acknowledged my speaker card but pointed out that the Council was not  required to take public comment, as the public had already had the opportunity to comment at a prior session. Of course, “not required” does not prevent the Council from allowing the two speakers to speak but the will was not there.

On the third occasion, I journeyed to City Hall to engage in the discussion of the proposed City Council File Motion which would provide Neighborhood Councils with the opportunity to introduce files to the City Council, receiving a file number and becoming part of the work product of the City Council. This issue has been brewing for over a year. It is hotly discussed and involves a financial disclosure element that some refer to as the “poison pill.” I turned in a speaker card and this time I was given the opportunity to speak.

I was brief and succinct, finishing before the clock ran out on my two minutes. I simply spoke from the perspective of a community organizer and stated my belief that the financial disclosure element would have a chilling effect on the civic engagement process, all at a time when we are working to involve the community in the business of our city.

I was flattered to hear those same words repeated by a Councilmember at a recent community event. Perhaps somebody was listening.

All of which brings me to the posted picture. I snapped the picture and posted it, chiding Garcetti, Greuel and Rosendahl for having a private conversation while Commissioners Lucks and Abrams were testifying and Councilwoman Perry was responding.

It was gently pointed out  to me by one of the participants that there are times that they have to engage in “Council business” which requires them to take their focus off the proceedings.

Fair enough. But the more I think about this, the more resolute I become; I AM Council business. The public is the reason for all of the work that takes place and ultimately, WE are the business of the City. In the grand scheme of things, the two minutes at the podium on an issue that has probably already been decided is less significant that the real need here for a real conversation. After all, great relationships all start with a great conversation.

Here’s to hoping that there are great conversations on the horizon, not just blog entries, not just two minutes at the podium but real conversations with a real dialogue that allow us to better understand each other and to work together on the business of Los Angeles.

Is not the product of good youth-development and education supposed to be civic engagement? If we are going to take Obama’s words seriously and do our part as citizens to get this country back on the right track, the education system should be priority numero uno.

Civic engagement means being involved and taking part in the duties and obligations of belonging to a community, from voting to attending a community meeting to volunteering in some kind of community service. But do we see our young adults crowding the streets to make positive change? Hardly. There is probably an entire web of issues leading to poor civic engagement, but it all starts with education.

I have been thinking a lot about this lately. I think it is pretty obvious that if someone has virtually no education, they will have a low paying job, maybe even three of them, and won’t even have the time to contribute to their community. Or, their lack of education could leave them oblivious to even the most basic structure of their community and how or why they should contribute. Or, like many people, maybe they do know how the system works, but they also feel they have no power or influence to make a difference. Personally, I can mark the exact minute when I became civically engaged – it was when I realized I could make a difference.

That is what education should be all about. Showing our youth how the system works and how to use it or change it to make things better. Empowering our youth will give them the interest and energy to contribute to their communities. That is what is going to revitalize this great nation of ours.

I wish our City Council would focus on, more than anything else, getting youth involved in community change. City Council should have its own White House-like student interns shadowing its council members and staffers at all times, learning the ins and outs of creating change in a highly political system. City Council should work with youth to have them organize and host community events. City Council should be tightly connected with our local schools to ensure that our youth are becoming civically engaged. Maybe City Council could encourage civic engagement of youth through our neighborhood councils.

This is not to neglect the fundamental, crucial problems in the Los Angeles Unified School District education system. Civic engagement should be the measure of how well the system is working, and that is my point. We need to change the system so it does work – so it produces valuable, productive, effective citizens that can change the world for the better. Can City Council do anything to make this happen?

Please share your thoughts.

Today marks a new beginning in America. So, just for today, I figured I would take a break from kvetching about the state of the economy and talk about the challenges we’ve been called to face together.

Sure, we have problems. Yesterday, Barack Obama said in his inaugural address:

“Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.”

Not exactly a rosy scenario. The temptation is to tune it all out, to focus our energies inward or to look to Washington to solve our problems. It feels good to know that we have a new president, a new outlook a new set of hands at the wheel. But Barack Obama knows better than anyone else that he can’t do this alone. He can’t fix our economy, educate our children or make our City our country or our planet any more livable on his own.

Barack Obama knows this, not at the intellectual level, but at the experiential level. He’s experienced the power of grassroots organizing. He’s a product of the South Side of Chicago, where he cut his political teeth organizing communities to make things better for themselves.

Yesterday, strangers in elevators looked each other in the eye. Some nodded their heads in recognition of the other. Many openly expressed their optimism and their hope for the future.

All this in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression – a crisis so deep and far-reaching that no one can be sure where the bottom will be.

Where did all this hope come from? And will it last? Will the Obama bubble burst the second some new challenge comes around the bend? I don’t think so. What Obama understands better than any politician in generations is that people want to be challenged; people want to roll up their sleeves and pitch in; people want to be engaged.

But old habits die hard. Speaking to unnamed foreign leaders, Barack Obama said: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Was Obama speaking to our local leaders? Maybe not. But dissent can be silenced as effectively with apathy as it can with a clenched fist.

So take this opportunity to become engaged. Not just by reading the Op Ed pages of the New York Times, but by educating yourself about what’s happening in your own back yard. I’m not suggesting how you should cast your vote on March 3rd, but vote. In the last election, Eric Garcetti won with barely ten thousand votes out of more than 130,000 registered voters.

He ran unopposed.

Now is the time for boots on the ground. Obama will fail if this country simply turns on the TV and watches change happen from the comfort of its living rooms. We can’t all go to Washington to work for change. We can’t all go to Baghdad or Afghanistan or Palestine. But we can all walk out our own front doors, talk to our neighbors, take the Metro, go to a Neighborhood Council meeting and become engaged in our own lives. Don’t let this moment pass.

Melrose between Vermont and Normandie is again blacked-out at night. Normandie between Rosewood on the South and Monroe to the North is also blacked-out. Normandie just South of Melrose, is totally dark. These dark streets are unsafe for motorists and pedestrians.

My initial impression that people around here needed the neighborhood council to help them take ownership of their space has changed. People from all over the neighborhood are calling, emailing and inviting City agencies to meetings. Although it is dark on the streets of East Hollywood, I can now see that it is the City who needs to take more ownership of this neighborhood. Nearly 4 acres of prime East Hollywood land are being used to house city lamp posts for the rest of the city. How do we motivate our city servants to fix the installed street lights so that the good people trying to run businesses, plan ArtCycles, walk and drive the streets of their neighborhood can get on with their work?

~Jennifer Moran

Written by Stephen Box, Hollywood Resident and Bike Activist http://SoapBoxLA.blogspot.com

One of the simplest things we can do to support mass transit in our community is to make sure that transit stops are comfortable, clean, safe and aesthetically pleasing. it seems like a no-brainer that if we want people to become transportation solutions by getting out of their cars we’ve got to make the choice attractive and at least competitive in terms of convenience and comfort.

Unfortunately, we’re far off the mark.

The Metro has its focus on getting people from point A to point B. As for the transit stop amenities, the “no-man’s land” approach from the Metro and the local authorities leaves the average mass transit patron feeling like a second class citizen.

The Metro holds that the City is responsible for the streets, the sidewalks and the amenities along the way. The City looks at the wear and tear on the transit heavy streets and asks the Metro for maintenance money and the standoff starts. Meanwhile, transit patrons throughout the City of Los Angeles stand on narrow, filthy sidewalks, looking for little respect.

The Metro holds that the sidewalks are not their responsibility and that the City is responsible for street furniture. The City turns and contracts out with CBSDecaux who then installs bus shelters with advertising, paying the City for the privilege. The money is split so that our City Councilmembers all end up controlling some of this revenue, ideally to be spent within the respective Council District.

CBSDecaux provides everything from the traditional bus shelter shown above to the automated public toilets (APTs) such as the one located at the Santa Monica and Vermont Red Line station. Along the way they put up advertising, on the bus shelters and on two and three sided sidewalk-sized kiosks and billboards.

Missing from this relationship is a simple commitment to supporting mass transit with an overall plan for streetscape beautification, a plan that would improve the aesthetic of the neighborhood, complement the local architecture and streetlife and encourage pedestrians and transit patrons.

The picture above is of a bus shelter on Hollywood Boulevard at Western. It sits on a narrow sidewalk, forcing pedestrians to squeeze past. The sidewalk is sticky, the area smells and the solid wall of the shelter hides the activities on the other side. It’s evident here that the standards for architectural security are non-existent, that the placement of transit stops is not part of a larger commitment to mass transit and that maintenance is low priority.

The sidewalk just beyond this shelter is sinking, leaving two plates that don’t line up. A simple misstep results in a tumble as pedestrians squeeze past the shelter and passengers who are jockeying for their bus.

On the west side of Western, the sidewalk is not just uneven and patched with asphalt, it has a meter hole covered with plywood.

At least mass transit passengers suffer no delusions of equality. It’s painfully apparent that in the grand scheme of things, mass transit is for people who have no choice. It’s evident that it’s a bare-bones service for those who can’t afford a car. A comfortable, walkable environment that is safe and pleasant is not something to be wasted on a public street.

It’s a sad commentary on our community that the most popular streetscapes are fake, created by developers who study Great Streets and then imitate them, drawing people in cars to the Grove, Americana and CityWalk, all so people can walk on faux boulevards. enjoying something they should be able to find in their own neighborhoods; walkable streets.

As for our neighborhood, it’ll change when we work together and demand big sidewalks, clean sidewalks, street furniture and a commitment to making our streets pedestrian oriented.

“See you on the Streets!”

This past weekend, I helped host a community tree event. The event was to do follow-up maintenance on trees we planted 10 months ago. Each time I do one of these events, I think about how it relates to community issues.

In case you are wondering, follow up tree-care is a vital step to ensuring trees make it in the urban environment, which is very difficult for trees. Also, the city does not have sufficient funding to maintain all the trees in the city. Someone has to ensure the trees planted actually make it. This is where the community comes in. Not only can they keep the closest eye on trees in their neighborhood, their participation helps the social health of the community.

During the event, I found myself conversing with other event volunteers about how wonderful it is to do tree care as a community event. Not only are community members invited to attend the event to check up on their street trees and to learn how to care for them, but when we work on the street, people cannot help but notice what we are doing. Sometimes they stop and join in the activity. Sometimes they stop to talk, find out more, and thank us for what we are doing. Sometimes they just look, but it probably gets them thinking. For everyone who participates, it builds a sense of belonging, responsibility, and connection to the people around us and to the streets on which we live.

We all know that the government cannot, and probably should not, do everything for us. The government extends only so far. In our city, it will pay for trees to be planted, but does not have the resources to take care of them all. At the same time, we notice social problems in our urban environments. What if we had well established systems of community participation where all residents actually did their part to contribute to improving the neighborhood, especially to compensate for lack of governmental resources/services? I think this would go a long way to improving social responsibility and connection in our neighborhoods. Could our City Council Representative do more to encourage this type of activity?

As I mentioned in my weekly recap, last week I sent a proposal to Garcetti’s campaign for three debates in the 13th Council District spread out throughout the district. This would be a great opportunity for each of us to share our views and approaches with voters and respond to their questions. Here is the prepared statement that I read at the City Council meeting on Wednesday, January 14, 2009:

Hi, my name is Gary Slossberg and I’m running for City Council for the 13th District. I come before the Council today to speak to the importance of public debates. Last week, I sent a proposal to my opponent to participate in public debates within our district, so that each of us could inform the voters of our positions on the issues that affect them most. To date, I have yet to receive a response.

As it stands now, if a candidate cannot raise substantial funds for their campaign, they have an incredibly difficult time competing for the attention of voters. This is without regard for the quality of their ideas and without regard for the dedication and work ethic that the candidate would bring to the office.

I find it quite appropriate to raise this issue the same week of that candidates’ fundraising reports are due. What should come as little surprise is that the funds raised by incumbents in most, if not all, of the races dwarfs in comparison the amount raised by their challengers. Unsurprisingly, so often the donors to the incumbents are the same vested special interests from which a government by the people and for the people should strive to protect us, as is the case here with contributions from rich developers and billboards companies.

What is abundantly clear to me is that our City desperately needs campaign finance reform to remove the influence of money out of our government. Second, what is clear to me is the need to mandate that candidates participate in open, public debates. A refusal to debate is an effort to silence opposition and de-legitimize one’s opponent, and it is a sad statement on our City government if to be a legitimate candidate one must be personally wealthy or have a famous last name. More importantly, given the gravity of the issues of the day, it is an offense to the voters to play political games rather than have an open debate between the candidates on how to get us through these tough times.

I am a former teacher, a Violence Prevention Educator, a long-time Neighborhood Council Board Member, and currently an attorney for low-income teen parents. Am I still not a legitimate candidate for office because I am not rich? That is not the type of government that the people of this City deserve.

I encourage everyone to contact Garcetti and ask him why he does not want to debate me. What is it about an open public dialogue that concerns him? I will continue to post updates on the progress of the situation.

“I guess we won’t be having another kid this year,” my co-worker said, after the Governor announced that State offices would be shut down two days per month indefinitely, amounting to a ten percent pay cut for State workers. “At least we still have jobs.”

Everywhere I go, the fear of being cut loose in this economy hangs in the air. Unofficially, it appears that claims for unpaid wages are down. Workers are staying in jobs without pay, with the hope that when things turn around, they’ll still have a job to go to.

Fear is in the air. It’s palpable. Just scan the business pages of your favorite newspaper and the subtext of fear is behind every word.

• The U.S. lost half a million jobs in December as the jobless rate rose to a 16-year high.
• Housing starts are down 70% from two years ago, as lumber mills close up shop all over the country.
• The third largest bank in the country announced fourth-quarter losses of more than $10 billion – despite having received $45 billion in bailout money from the federal government since October.
• The collapse of the Stock Market has left pension funds underfunded by more than $400 billion dollars.
• LA Unified School District is set to lay off 2,300 teachers.
• The State of California is cutting grants to low and middle income College students, putting the possibility of a college education out of reach for those who need it most.

People can’t get money to build homes or buy cars. The State of California has announced that it may have to delay sending out tax refunds this year. Meanwhile, the people I know are hunkered down, waiting for the next piece of bad news and doing whatever it takes to hang on to their jobs in this bleak economy.

There is one group, however, who doesn’t seem to be showing any signs of fear: the political leaders of Los Angeles. Despite the bleak economic outlook, Antonio Villaraigosa raised more than $2.7 million dollars for his reelection campaign. Jack Weiss raised more than $350,000 in his bid to become City Attorney, and Wendy Gruel took in more than $650,000 for her campaign to replace Laura Chick as City Controller.

Here in Council District 13, the incumbent, Eric Garcetti, reports raising more than half a million dollars in 2008 – which just adds to his already bloated war chest.

All this political money means that the incumbent officeholders can afford to forego government matching funds. Why is that significant? Because government matching funds come with strings attached – like the requirement that the candidate actually debate his or her opponent.

Villaraigosa’s closest rival, trial lawyer Walter Moore, has raised about $127,000 this past year. He ran unsuccessfully for mayor in 2005, and has significant support in his community. He wants to debate Villaraigosa, but the mayor has refused.

“We’re not going to debate Lyndon LaRouche either,” said Villaraigosa’s spokesman, comparing Moore to the perennial fringe candidate.

Oh yeah – and let ‘em eat cake.

But seriously, why should our political leaders debate their opponents? Because they owe it to their constituents? Because they should be able to defend their positions in a public forum if they expect to lead this City through these tough times? Because we live in a democracy?

Please.

Everyone knows it’s a sucker move to debate a hungry opponent when you’ve got a famous name and a fat war chest. Still, the people are demanding accountability. Gary Slossberg has called on Eric Garcetti to debate. Garcetti hasn’t seen fit to respond. Neighborhood Councils are demanding accountability.

As President of the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council, I hereby extend the invitation to Mr. Garcetti to engage in a public candidate’s forum which we will hold in East Hollywood. The 53,000 stakeholders of East Hollywood would love to hear what you have to say.

Posted by David Bell