"Granny Flats" for Los Angeles? Let's all squeeze in more people together. City Council backs off on selling that idea.

The plans for increasing population density in Los Angeles have changed because of public opposition. The "Accessory Dwelling Units," aka "Granny Flats," are no longer being pushed as a goal supposedly mandated by state law. The idea raised the eyebrows and the ire of the public to such an extent that it is being abandoned for now. What exactly was that idea about? Please read on for recent commentary on the topic.

"Invasiaon of the Granny Flats; Los Angeles weighs a plan to allow back yard dwellings and car parking on lawns." http://www.laweekly.com/2009-12-10/news/invasion-of-the-granny-flat - By Steven Leigh Morris, "L.A. Weekly," published on December 09, 2009 at 12:30pm, This is another of the examples of why the "L.A. Weekly" is the place to see the real picture of what's going on at City Hall, things that are not presented as they actually are when it comes to truthfulness of the Mayor and the City Council.

The other source for shedding light on dark conditions is the "Ron Kaye L.A." blog, where Ron Kaye wrote about this particular topic even earlier. In November, his item on the blog covered the situation with an article called, "Coming Soon to Your Neighborhood: Granny Flats, Converted Garages, Houses Turned into Tenements," By Ron Kaye on November 16, 2009 1:44 PM. http://ronkayela.com/2009/11/coming-soon-to-your-neighborho.html

The impact of the public's response to the City's direction towards "densification" of an already densely populated city was to stop this effort. In a posting on Ron Kaye's blog on Saturday, it was recognition of another step taken by the people against an arrogant "City Hall" plan that would reduce the quality of life in many parts of the city.

"The Granny Flat Gambit: Vigilance and the Struggle for Self-Governance," by Ron Kaye on December 19, 2009- 12:03 PM, http://ronkayela.com/2009/12/the-granny-flat-gambit.html . The message was very simple and direct, shown in an excerpt from that column:

"On Friday, the City Planning Department announced in an email to angry mob of homeowners that plans were being abandoned to legalize Accessory Dwelling Unites (ADUs) -- granny flats in backyards, converted garages and houses turned into
tenements -- in every residential neighborhood except those occupied by the
hillside-dwelling rich and the open spaces of the equestrian crowd."

Yet, there is not a complete victory as some people view it here since the state law may hasten some of the same undesired outcomes without a city law in Los Angeles to define controls that are separate and more restrictive than the State law, as some other cities have done. The Los Angeles city trend, different from the public's view, was to relax the rules to allow more housing units to be permitted, going along with the general direction of over-development that aggravates an already inadequate infrastructure, i.e., breaking water mains, traffic gridlock, heavy burdens on service from the LAPD and the LAFD, and on and on with more like these examples. So, the danger remains in this area. Unless there is a city ordinance enacted, according to the interpretation of State law by some people, that State law would provide for such additional housing to be built anyway, all to the detriment of the local public.

All that remains to be seen, but for now, it is a result that was generated by the actions of an involved public. That vigilance will continue on this front and on others to bring to city leaders the novel concept of a government that is supposed to represent the constituents, not dictate to them. Trusting the politicians to do the right thing for us is no longer a safe path to follow and probably never was. The conditions now call for more scrutiny of elected and appointed officials and their decisions if life in the city and state is to improve. We already see how well life is for the politicians with salaries and benefits in excess of any logical need, serving often to make them feel endowed with qualities of royalty. History tells us that control by royalty was what the country was trying to escape when it declared its independence a few centuries back.

Has City Council forgotten that the "Infrastructure" is ALREADY stressed?

The Water Conservation ordinance is now in operation. In that language, the ban on watering between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. is pretty clear, with few a very narrow exceptions for some specified businesses. The "Tuesday and Thursday Only" restriction on watering days is definitely for sprinkler systems, but you won't have to let everything in your yard die for lack of water.

Phase II has language that gives a break for most of us:

"3. These provisions do not apply to hand-held hose watering of vegetation, if
the hose is equipped with a self-closing water shut-off or device, which is
allowed every day during Phase II except between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m." If somebody has a different interpretation, let me know but check the ordniance (amended) at DWP's website.

AND WHERE DOES ALL THIS COME FROM?
There's a clip from the meeting of City Council- the link from Zuma Dogg's website- where he speaks on an agenda item that is one example of the City Council's continuing mission to densify the city's population pattern. I have mentioned the same ideas, but not in the very clear and loud way Zuma Dogg does, and still, Zuma's message is simple and is ignored- that's how we got into the mess and getting deeper into it every day with City Council's assistance.

See the 2-minutes of ZD's "Comment" this part of Tuesday's meeting- Zuma Dogg is speaking from the Van Nuys City Hall remote location: http://lacity.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=130&clip_id=6129&caption_id=8436539

(Zuma Dogg's website L.A. DAILY BLOG http://ladailyblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/zuma-doggs-devastating-public-comment.html with his own view on things, as unpleasant as it seems, a lot of this is already seen to be true, and the rest of his "inside information" may be on to something, as he's been right very often in the past)

The city is sinking under the overload of a burden on everything it has, BUT it slows development down NOT ONE BIT. Are we racing to the edge of a cliff and expect not to fall off? One clear example is the obvious need for more police officers on the street- we are understaffed here. But why do the Council and Mayor keep pushing the goal line further and further away by EXPANDING THE NEED for police by putting in developments for packing in more people?

Actions like this are either insane or politically motivated. In this city, it's some of both. I would like to see somebody on City Council own up to this contradiction. There is money being made on the actions going on and not all of it is obvious. City Council: Instead of trying to shoot the messenger, pay attention to the message. That is the biggest failing of the City Council.

Decline of Los Angeles- Some lies from City Hall revealed here for your review

There's an enlightening article about L.A.'s development and it reflects something I have noticed over the recent years in a very revealing piece. It clearly is important now, during the reign of Emperor Villaraigosa- the same man who made the pronouncement a few years ago that the days of houses with big yards is over and he pushed harder for more "densification" development in Los Angeles to pack in more people more tightly.


This article, "The Decline Of Los Angeles" in Forbes Magazine, 2-24-09, is written by Joel Kotkin, who manages the blog, newgeography.com , http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/villaraigosa-economy-unemployment-jobs-opinions-columnists_los_angeles.html

I am glad to say all the things I have noticed that were in conflict with the story-spinning going on at City Hall by council members, the Mayor and their stooges, were not unnoticed by others. Support of industry when coversions were going on full speed to wipe out areas housing such areas. Rezoning like in the area between Boyle Heights and downtown, is the reality.

Trying to back up and CREATE industrial areas just won't happen. Too many people will make complaints especially when you pack more in smaller spaces. Example: all the airports, but particularly in Burbank where residents constantly complaing about flights and hours, even when quieter jets are used. THINK ABOUT THIS- Who was there FIRST? AND when you moved there, DIDN'T YOU SEE there was an airport already there?

All that goes for all airports that get residents to later complain about their very existence. The same happens now for industry. On a smaller scale, even just auto repair shops in Eagle Rock are the last of their kind on Colorado- when they move or close, another auto-based business cannot come in- it's going upscale there and restaurants and such are preferred in the plan.

So please read this article and it will also tell you more of the "they say THIS, but they do THAT," style you see from Mayor Tony and the supporting council members, mostly all of them very cozy with Tony.

Judge all for yourself, and that's the statement that you don't get from politicians.

Read and see. It might help you decide to actually vote for some changes.

The City "asks" for your advice- Really?

Today's Sunday L.A. Times story starts off like something clever, "Go ahead: Try to run L.A. better; A city questionnaire let residents weigh in on how to allocate fund, given a budget gap of $433 million," by Marve Reston. I know that the writer does not control the headlines used, but this sounds like an outright challenge to the residents to come up with a way to do a better job than the City Council and the Mayor. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-losangelessurvey21-2008dec21,0,1574151.story

It would be a nice thought to believe that our city's managers are thinking about the wishes of the common folks in how the city operates, but in my opinion, it's a rare occasion that such a thought crosses their mind. Actually, I don't think they intend that this really is to “manage” the city, but really functions to see what numbers of people will be bothered by what the Council and Mayor will be doing anyway.

The idea that we are getting a chance to tell them anything is totally fallacious- phony, bogus, completely untrue. First, the mess they are in is really pretty much beyond our limited input to change at this stage of the game. Now if they had told us they really were looking for ideas maybe, say, earlier when they were SPENDING the money, it might be believable. Well, now that they are finding that their budget was blown, and all was "overspent,” it’s something of a waste of time. But we don't get "invited" for a real participation since we don't have a real idea of where the spending choices came from to make our tax dollars disappear because they hide information from the public and they don’t want anyone in their way.

It's really just another illusion of “participation” that is supposed to make you feel like you have a responsive government. The city survey is posted on the city home page, according to the story. I think I saw it while I was going through the website in several different and unsuccessful efforts at finding the Council Meeting Agendas “posted within the 72 hours before the meeting” that Council President Eric Garcetti says are there. If the surveys were really something that we were SUPPOSED to know about in the first place, you would have the council phones and all the websites and newsletter of these council members telling you that it's there. How many of you knew they were looking for your opinion? Maybe I am too critical.

They ask you about what should be cut. Where was that question when it was time to ask what money should be SPENT? Here’s a little taste of how freewheeling the council is. There is an event fee waiver category that allows city services to be done for free to the event organizers. That is, without having the costs collected or charged to them, as with expenses when there is a parade or festival or something that calls for more police and other services.

Some events that are for all the public and free are good reasons, but there used to be things like $7,000 here for the Dodgers playoff traffic control costs a few years ago and other money-makers getting a free ride, too. The continual complaints by the people that go to City Hall and bring it up every time seems to be getting them to cut down on the generosity, since we ARE in a budget crisis after all.

We really should have been consulted before the choices were made to dive head first into more debt. The Mayor tries to sidestep this problem and act like it was a surprise, but he was playing fast and loose with the budget money years ago and allowing some generous pay raises to happen in DWP contract negotiations. A consequence of those big raises was to make other departments expect the same big raises. They were not happy when that didn’t happen, creating a hostile frame of mind at contract time, with some work stoppages having occurred to show their displeasure.

No, we don't get to be part of the spending spree, but this slimy way that they want to say, "See, it's not so easy to run a city," doesn't fly with me. Asking if we should spend more on police and fire protection is kind of a loaded question- we need that, but with all the development and "smart growth" that they try to press on with, it just makes the need more urgent when more people are put into the same space. The Council and Mayor cannot be so stupid as to NOT see this, OR, maybe they are. (The mayor already announced he’s not cutting back on his spare-no-expense crusade to achieve his 10,000-police officer level for the LAPD. He’s ego and campaign involved here, but that, too, will be another story.)

In an odd way, their actions may show some logic in the way they happen to work out. By continuing the over-development of the city- besides getting money flowing to their special interest-campaign fund contributor-developer friends for construction and sales to generate profits- more development will mean there will ALWAYS be a need for MORE police officers and fire fighters. How about SLOWING DOWN on this trend to lighten up on the demand for services? Sorry, the Council and Mayor are way too far into development and “DENSIFICATION,” or packing more people into the same space that had LESS people before, for them to back up now and disappoint the special interests or admit they actually goofed it all up.

The other purpose that I think is too attractive for them to resist is the money they see coming in when development happens. They see that more people and business will make more numbers in the taxing operations of the city so that it's "making money" for the city. They ignore the fact that it also makes more traffic and parking problems, more crime, more pollution and more demand for good streets, water supply, police and fire protection services and just about anything else needed by people. In the end, I would say that the city comes out short.

I liken the Council's method to how a thief will sell the stolen goods, like a watch or electronic device, for just a small fraction of the price that the victim actually paid for it. The thief thinks it's a fine profit since he started out with a zero cash figure and now has some money. The victim who paid a full price loses out completely since ALL the value is gone by reason of the theft; the victim might even have been financially better off if he could have been able to buy the stolen goods back for whatever bargain price it was sold for.

So the city, by collecting taxes from the larger group of taxpayers, is doing the "selling" like the thief (and I don't think the labels are completely separated) and it's all profit to it. The residents who were here before now have to "share" an already insufficient amount of services and infrastructure with the addition that development brought in.

The city doesn't really care. Look at the giveaway of sign rights that happened a few weeks back when the council approved a deal that lets a developer have rights for Convention Center electronic billboards to be erected. The council gave this right away for peanuts when the advertising will bring in millions of dollars to the advertising company.

Furthermore, the electronic billboards are more accurately called a "blight" on the environment. Let’s see, first you had a clear view of things and now you have a big electronic billboard cluttering up the view and shining on with its messages all the time. And consider this: Is there a traffic hazard involved here? The council doesn't think so, or, at least not compared to the money that they will get- and as I mentioned earlier, ANY money is worth a lot to them, even if they ripped themselves off by the giveaway price collected. You can compare your own experience when passing the big billboard by the Harbor Freeway between Staples Center and USC, or the billboards on the Citadel property by the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) in Commerce. Can you keep from looking at them?

I will continue with this in the next installment- and there’s a lot to question when it comes to our shifty city hall occupants.