Culver City School Board: the voters matter, all day long

“I simply rise to make the point that democracy matters and it matters all day long,” said L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas. “Voters matter. They are important in this process.”

These words were uttered by our County Supervisor after the passing of LAUSD Board Member Marguerite La Motte, when the Board of Education was considering the matter of appointing her replacement to avoid a costly election.  In the end, the Board decided on the appointment of Dr. Sylvia Rousseau for the remainder of the term. Dr. George Mc Kenna was eventually elected to represent Board District 1.

The Culver City School Board faced a similar challenge at the end of February of this year, when Board Member Sue Robins announced that she would be moving to Portland, vacating her seat.  Both the Board of LAUSD and of CCCUSD are governed by this clause in the California Education Code (5091):

(a) (1) If a vacancy occurs, or if a resignation has been filed with the county superintendent of schools containing a deferred effective date, the school district or community college district governing board shall, within 60 days of the vacancy or the filing of the deferred resignation, either order an election or make a provisional appointment to fill the vacancy.

The two situations for filling a vacancy were similar, and the solutions chosen were similar, but the process by which each Board made their decision were very different.

Ms. La Motte passed away unexpectedly on December 5, 2013. Naturally, given that the Board had sixty days to act, it chose to allow a period of mourning.  The Board didn’t take up the matter until January 7th, when a special meeting was held to take public input on the matter. The Los Angeles Times reported on the meeting and community members, including County Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas, spoke eloquently to the issues that an appointment raises in a democracy. After the meeting, community conversations took place, and the public at large was engaged and familiar with the matter of the appointment. A powerful letter to the editor  written by two former School Board members, suggested a committee be created to “set criteria, review applications and provide three options to the school board, which would then make an appointment”. In contrast, the Los Angeles Times, through its editorial advocated for an election.

In the end, running up against the 60 day deadline, the Board of Education held a second meeting on February 5, 2014 and appointed Dr. Sylvia Rousseau for the seat vacated by Ms. La Motte.

While the debate in this circumstance points to the differences between the two situations, what is very different is the manner by which both Boards engaged the public in the process.

The LAUSD used practically every one of the 60 days allowed by the law to help the community mourn, dialogue and debate the issues.  In contrast, on March 1, some in Culver City learned about the vacancy by receiving an email that invited interested community members to submit an application. Notices were posted on the website and in local newspapers.  Interested applicants had 9 days (deadline was set for March 10th) to submit their paperwork and had to do so in person (one application was not accepted because it didn’t meet this requirement).  The meeting was set for March 14th, only 2 weeks after Board Member Sue Robins filed her resignation to the Superintendent of Schools.

In two weeks, the issue was decided, despite the fact that the Board had until April 29th, 2017 to make this decision.

In the end, the Board decided on the appointment of Summer Mc Bride, an active PTA parent who was lauded by everyone who spoke on her behalf at the March 14th meeting for her leadership skills.  Many also supported her because she has been an active leader at El Rincon Elementary, a community that has long needed a voice on the Board.   And many spoke about the importance of our leaders representing the diversity in our community. The points I am about to make do not aim to detract in any way from Board Member Mc Bride, because I support her appointment.

It would be, however, wrong for our community not to reflect on the process, because it is highly likely that Summer Mc Bride would have been appointed anyway.

The haste of the appointment was only a part of the problem.  The deeper problem was the issue of transparency.  The Culver City community did not know much about the candidates that had submitted their applications until the day of the Board meeting, when they saw the names on the agenda .  (Even if they had searched for the item online within the 72 hour period required for the posting of the agenda, they would have only found the applicants’ names).  The applications, including their qualifications and their responses to the questions that Board members were going to use to evaluate them, were not made available to the public, unless individuals requested them.  I was among the lucky that was forwarded an email with the applications the day before the Board meeting.

It seems that the Education Code gives a community 60 days for Governing Board to make an appointment because passing on a formal election is a serious matter in a democracy. If the assumption is that an election is too costly, we must not assume that keeping voters informed and engaged on the matter of their representation isn’t equally costly.

In a democracy, our representatives, through their election are given a sacred trust to act in our behalf. Honestly, the actions of this Board in this appointment made a mockery of this bedrock principle.  Culver City voters deserve better.   We matter, all day long.

 

 

Good news Culver City, your City Council agrees: Affordable Housing is a Priority!

Well, sort of.

You see, they’ve been engaging in an important process: creating a Strategic Plan for the next five years, and they finally released it. You can read it here.

But, in the process of creating it, they started by individually sharing their priorities and perspectives and deciding on topics for in-depth discussion with the community. They decided on these topics by considering: 1) the community’s level of interest, 2) whether the issue is a priority for other cities in Los Angeles County, and 3) if addressing the issue would generate City revenue or require City resources.

The good news is that by the size of the font in the word cloud they created in the discussion of these topics, Affordable Housing was a clear winner.

 

 

That is the good news.

Isn’t it great that they agree that this is an important topic, not just for Culver City but for other cities in the County and that resources would be required or generated?  That’s fantastic!  Hurray, Culver City Council!

The only little problem is that despite this, when they went through and established goals for the next five years in the Strategic Plan, they kind of forgot about Affordable Housing.

But not completely.

In their goal to “Identify New Revenue Sources to Increase Financial Stability”, they considered not only an excise tax on marijuana dispensaries, but the application of a Transient Occupancy Tax to Short-Term Rentals Initiatives (also known as AirBnB).

And they also established a goal of Enhancing Culver City’s Reputation as a City of Kindness, with two objectives: 1) Defining what it means to be a City of Kindness and 2) Implement a Kindness Strategy within City Government.

And importantly, the City Council also agreed to finally host the Community Conversation on Affordable Housing and Related Issues on January 28, 2017.

 

So, dear Culver City friends and neighbors, I think we’ve got something to go with.  I invite you all to think about how we should be able to ask the Council to address our Affordable Housing challenges within the goal of Implementing a Kindness Strategy within City Government and bring this to the Community Conversation.

Let’s come to this conversation prepared with proposals that will make it clear to the world, that when it comes to Affordable Housing, Culver City is surely a City of Kindness!

We have a month and a half, and the right season around us, to think deeply about this and get ready!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A solution looking for a problem: Culver City Measure CA

At the end of a very long ballot this November, we have to vote on 4 local measures, one of which should give us much reason for concern: Measure CA.

Measure CA asks that we amend our City Charter (our Constitution) to take the power to hire, suspend and fire the Police and Fire Chief away from the City Council and give this power to the City Manager, even though this system has been in place for 70 years.

The more I think about this measure, the more questions come up for me, so I’ve decided to share these questions with you, and ask that unless you find good answers for them, that you vote NO on Measure CA this November.

For starters, why are three sitting Council members (Clarke, Cooper and Eriksson) asking us to change it now? What problem does the measure solve for us, the residents of the City?

Here are their arguments:

It is not the Councilmembers’ job to run the City, they have full time jobs and are not trained in public administration.

They are not trained in public administration? Are they being asked to be in charge of the daily supervision of the Chiefs?  As far as I can read, the Measure does not change the daily supervision of the Chiefs by the City Manager.

If City Councilmembers are not up to the task of evaluating our Police and Fire Chiefs, why are they up to the task of evaluating the City Manager and the City Attorney, the two other positions that would remain under their oversight?

Because the City Manager lacks the ability to suspend or fire the Chiefs, he or she lacks the authority to compel their collaboration should it become elusive.

How many times have our City Managers had to deal with the elusive collaboration of the Chiefs?   How is it that the Departments have improved within the existing system?

The Chiefs must take direction from 5 independently elected bosses, which is not the most effective way to conduct business

Again, let’s remember that daily oversight (providing direction) is still the City Manager’s job. Are City Council members constantly giving direction to the Police and Fire Chief?  Is there a problem that we have not been aware of?

I just read this message that the Police Chief put out to the community this past June.  It appears to me that, even while operating under the system that Measure CA attempts to change, he appears responsive to the community, collaborative and effective.  While the report shows that the proportion of arrests is overwhelmingly Black and Latino, this is an issue we can take up with our City Council, as a policy matter.

My questions have led to an even deeper question.

Our City Councilmembers were elected to handle the hiring, evaluation and firing of the Chiefs. Are they now looking to have less responsibility?

If that is the problem, I question why they ran for a position requiring more responsibility than they were prepared to handle.  Am I missing something?

Again, unless I get more clarity on these matters, I’m voting No on Measure CA.

Here’s the website where you can find the language and the various arguments.

 

 

 

 

 

Culver City is more impatient to be polystyrene free than our leaders seem to be..

In a letter to our community, Mayor Clarke and Vice Mayor Cooper assured us that they were either  truly in a hurry or perhaps merely not stalling the polystyrene ban… or worse yet, not being in support of promoting a healthy environment for our residents.

Whichever it is, we are relieved.. and very much hoping we will be able to count on their expeditious leadership to vote for a strong and effective ban of non-recyclable Polystyrene Take-out Single-use Food Service Containers in Culver City.

We understand their concerns, and we laud their ambitious efforts to think about how the City may take on the establishing a commercial recycling program for all our small businesses. This issue could make for a very interesting discussion in the Committee, but we are afraid that they are using the issue of recycling polystyrene as a diversion tactic.

Because, the reality is  that was not the item on the agenda.  The item at hand was the very specific issue of banning Single-use Food Service Containers.  Many of the speakers, City Staff and Councilmember Sahli-Wells explained in detail the unique characteristics of this type of waste which makes recycling it so costly (Recycled polystyrene cannot in most cases be used for products that contact food because of health concerns, even though the material is usually sterilized by the recycling process).  At some point, Mayor Clarke suggested that perhaps containers should be washed to make it easier to recycle them. Councilmember Sahli-Wells wondered why in a drought we would consider using water for this purpose, and stated that it was much simpler to just ban them.

It seems that in one fell swoop, starting with Councilmember Eriksson and followed by both Mayor Clarke and Vice Mayor Cooper, the conversation changed, from the item on the agenda, to an issue that was not on the agenda: the City’s efforts to recycle polystyrene packing material.  In their letter, it appears that they are attempting to do this again.

My response to their letter is simple. If they want us to believe that they are true stewards of the environment, they need not try to distract us.  We know what our community wants. We want to follow the lead of the 98 cities that have already approved polystyrene bans. We want Culver City to follow the footsteps of those cities that are taking their first ordinance and making it stronger.  We want to echo what one of the speakers who had surveyed restaurants on their use of polystyrene food containers told us they said: “that is so 1980’s!”

We urge Vice Mayor Cooper to bring the issue back so he can focus attention on the issue that was on the agenda, so he can retract his motion and instead call on the staff to draft a strong ordinance for the item that was before the Council.  Just check out what San Francisco is up to.

When they do this, we will believe that they are not, as it appeared, in opposition to the ban. And more importantly, they will show that they are very serious about taking every step to meet the state mandates to reduce waste.

And then, they will make us proud.

For those who want to study this issue more deeply here is the link to the City Council Agenda for the Monday meeting. Scroll to the page 8 (item A-1) and you will find the links to the Ballona Creek Renaissance proposal, a very thorough presentation of the importance of the ban, and the presentation that the City of Santa Monica Sustainability Committee made to the Culver City Sustainability Committee.  Considering that the Committee already studied the issue, it was a little perplexing why the Council would send it back to Committee.

Here is an Update from the Culver City Community Coalition that includes notes from the meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

Putting away our lawn signs…

The final tally is in.  Meghan Sahli-Wells, Thomas Small and Goran Eriksson were elected to the City Council.  Congratulations to one and all!

So, it’s time to pull the yard signs  out and put them away.  But, I am having a particularly hard time pulling the Daniel Lee sign out. Literally, I think I put the stakes in very deep and I’ll need someone with more brute force than I have to help me.

But as I was trying, I realized there was some symbolism there for me.  I am having a hard time accepting that for a few hundred votes, we were not able to elect the first African American Council Member in the City’s 100 year history.  I’m a bit tired of theorizing with others about why this is. Why this didn’t happen isn’t as important as the fact that it didn’t happen, and that it means something for our City.   What that something is will likely depend on each person’s history and the perspective that they have based on that history.

Conversations about race are hard. I recently went to a workshop entitled “Courageous Conversations about Race”. I was attracted by the title of the workshop, because indeed, it takes courage to get in there, to stay in there.

I got something that I want to share from that workshop.  A ‘tool’ that they believe is helpful for people to use, on their own, which I think is a safe way to start.  Not everyone is ready to get into the room. Some because they don’t believe that race is a problem, others because they think that class is the bigger problem, and others because, well, for a million other reasons.  A big one may be that you don’t want to find out that maybe you have racist thoughts.  So, relax, this is not about that at all.

The tool is called “Creating your Racial Autobiography”.  I’m going to share the questions, and hope that you will read to the end, try to answer them or at least just think about them.  That might be enough.  You could think about your answers and then share with others in casual conversations. Or not.

Here we go.

To help you think about the time between your earliest and most recent racial experiences, jot down notes to answer the questions below. Let the questions guide but not limit your thinking. Note any other memories or ideas that seem relevant to you. When you have identified some of the landmarks on your racial journey, start writing your autobiography. Remember that it is a fluid document, one that you will reflect on and update many times as your racial consciousness evolves.

1. Family: Are your parents the same race? Same ethnic group? Are your brothers and sisters? What about your extended family — uncles, aunts, etc.? Where did your parents grow up? What exposure did they have to racial groups other than their own? (Have you ever talked with them about this?) What ideas did they grow up with regarding race relations? (Do you know? Have you ever talked with them about this? Why or why not?) Do you think of yourself as White? As Black? As Asian? As Latino? As American Indian? Or just as “human?” Do you think of yourself as a member of an ethnic group? What is its importance to you?

2. Neighborhood: What is the racial makeup of the neighborhood you grew up in? What was your first awareness of race – that there are different “races” and that you are a member of a racial group. What was your first encounter with another race? Describe the situation. When and where did you first hear the ‘n’ word, or other similar racial slurs? What messages do you recall getting from your parents about race? From others when you were little?

3. Elementary and Middle School: What was the racial makeup of your elementary school? Of its teachers? Think about the curriculum: what Black Americans did you hear about? How did you celebrate Martin Luther King Day? What about Asian Americans, or Latinos, or American Indians? Cultural influences: TV, advertisements, novels, music, movies, etc. What color God was presented to you? Angels? Santa Claus? The tooth fairy! Dolls? What was the racial makeup of organizations you were in? Girl Scouts, soccer team, church, etc.?

4. High School and community: What was the racial makeup of your high school? Of its teachers? Was there interracial dating? Racial slurs? Any conflict with members of another race? Have you ever felt or been stigmatized because of your race or ethnic group membership? What else was important about your high-school years, racially speaking — maybe something that didn’t happen in high school but during that time? What is the racial makeup of your hometown? Of your metropolitan area? What about your experiences in summer camp, summer jobs, etc.?

5. Present and Future: What is the racial makeup of the organization you currently work in? Of your circle(s) of friends? Does it meet your needs? Realistically, think about where you want to live (if different from where you are now). What is its racial makeup? Social class makeup? Where do you want to work in the next 10 years? What is its racial makeup? Social class makeup?

6. General: What’s the most important image, encounter, whatever, you’ve had regarding race? Have you felt threatened? In the minority? Have you felt privileged?

 

You can find this tool and other resources here.

 

 

 

In Culver City, residents’ voices also matter.

Before you assume that this post might be a straight up attack on business, let me start with this. For over twenty years, I was a small business owner. After that, I went into the non-profit world to help women start their business and to help support small business development in places like East Palo Alto and Oakland. I eventually moved into the policy world when I moved back to Los Angeles to work as the Economic Development Deputy for Los Angeles Council Member Jackie Goldberg.   All to say that I believe it is important to support entrepreneurship and to support businesses that create jobs that compensate their employees fairly, that provide good working conditions and that are good responsible citizens. Over all those years, I learned that it is important for us to support our local businesses, and also larger employers that are fair to their employees.

But I also believe that in the policy world – which is the world of the rules that our leaders work to put in place, to create fairness – there must be a balance, so that all of our needs can be met. In a small community like ours, it is easy, when our Chamber of Commerce advertises as our ‘community based’  Chamber of Commerce to think that it is.  It is true, they support our local efforts in many ways, and that is a good thing.

But we must remember that the Chamber exists primarily to advocate for the needs of their members, which are almost exclusively businesses.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  Just like unions advocate for the needs of the workers they represent. Or how the Democratic Party or the Republican Party advocate for their candidates. That is why they exist.

The problem is that often, the residents do not have their own advocates.

Let’s just take one issue – the issue of restrictive parking.  In this press release, Steve Rose, who has headed the Chamber for over 27 years, gives us his opinion about the ‘sharing economy’.

“Another issue facing local NIMBY’s is restrictive parking in residential neighborhoods that attempts to keep local employees and customers from parking in the neighborhoods. How are locals going to handle this intrusion into their neighborhoods?”

This is despite the fact that the existing guidelines for establishing parking districts – that the City Council approved – define a process that gives residents of any particular street the right to establish a parking district, if they can get a super majority of residents to approve it. The Chamber seems to want to do away with these protections, so that our streets can become the parking lots for local businesses.

They will succeed in doing this as long as we, the residents, don’t have a voice in the City Council that can counter the voice of the two Chamber-endorsed Council members who will not be retiring – Jeff Cooper and Jim Clarke.  Jeff Cooper has been advocating for this, by suggesting that we should have two hour parking all over Culver City.

Just consider the resources our City would have to spend to enforce this, if it is even possible.

We already know that the City is perfectly capable of building parking lots to avoid the intrusion of cars into our neighborhoods.  We also know that we are working hard to rely more on public transit to take us places (to the beach soon!).

Importantly, we have rules in place for protecting residents who are facing excessive parking intrusion.  These rules  are currently being challenged by setting dangerous precedents. I wrote about it here: “Sometimes a small decision raises big questions”.

Of equal importance, the Chamber of Commerce has historically been a player in ensuring the leaders it has endorsed refuse to address the important issue of affordable housing in our community. I wrote about it here: Let’s vote for change, Culver City!

Finally, the voice of renters in our community is not being heard in Culver City as long as the Chamber has a majority on the City Council.   I wrote about the challenges they are facing with the latest explosion in rent hikes here: This Tuesday, let’s vote for rent hikes control, Culver City!

We need economic development.  And businesses need a voice.  But residents’ voices also matter.

There has not been a better voice for the needs of residents than Councilmember Meghan Sahli-Wells.  Let’s get her re-elected.  And let’s elect Daniel Lee, a renter.  And Thomas Small, who understands how critical design and traffic management are to building a better city.

Tomorrow is Election Day.  Vote for candidates who respect residents’ voices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Tuesday, let’s vote for rent HIKES control, Culver City!

Many unsuspecting Culver City residents have been hit with rent hikes.  Some have survived them by adjusting their lifestyle.  Maybe they’re having fewer dinners out, or fewer trips to the mall, maybe one less vacation. Or maybe it’s more like belt-tightening, more like staying up at night figuring out which bill/s not to pay, how in the world to make ends meet. And many have not survived the rent hike. The day they get the notice sets off  a period of instability that will inevitably, perhaps dramatically affect the lives of every family member.

Some people will say there’s nothing we can do about it, and that it’s too just too bad for these families.  They can move somewhere else where they can afford to live and work to make it as good a place as Culver City is, they say. Perhaps it’s because these people own their home and no longer remember the insecurity that renting brings.

But the reality is that 45% of our community rents.  And every time a new renter moves out, another one who can afford the current rent moves in.  And they feel secure because they’ve signed a lease. And maybe because they don’t know that once their lease expires and they move to a month-to-month arrangement, there aren’t rules in our City that protect them from a rent hike. They too might be forced to alter their economics or decide to move out.

Maybe they’ve heard that the candidates endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce and the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (Eriksson, Wyant and Tiggs) have been speaking out against rent control.  Maybe they don’t realize this is a red herring, because cities in California have been highly discouraged from passing rent control, as California state law (the Costa Hawkins Act of 1995) prohibits its application to properties built after 1995.

The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (arguing that most landlords in Culver City are mom and pop operations) has been keeping the myth of rent control being around the corner going, and this has had two important effects on our community.  First, it has led to more rent hikes, because when landlords believe rent control is coming, they figure they should increase their rent, before they no longer can. Second, it has distracted the conversation in this election away from the real problem of rent hikes.

What we need are City Council members who are willing to engage in this conversation, and talk honestly about how the City can enact protections for renters.  And as importantly, we need to elect leaders who understand that we need to build more housing, affordable for all different income levels. Leaders that get that as long as our housing supply is low, rents are going to continue sky rocketing.  If you are a landlord, this is great. And as rents increase, property values will also increase.

But we all know that rising property values cannot be the only measure of our community’s well being. We have to consider the many impacts of having our community no longer being affordable to families of many income levels.

So, when we go vote, we have to consider who endorses the candidates we vote for and what they stand for. We are better off voting for the candidates who are endorsed by the Culver City Democratic Club and the Sierra Club, who consider both the entire community and the environment.  That is Meghan Sahli-Wells, Daniel Lee and Thomas Small.

 

Who should Culver City renters vote for on April 12th?

If they are looking for candidates who will defend their interests and advocate on their behalf, renters should look very carefully at candidates next April 12th.  For starters, they should not support candidates like Goran Eriksson who are endorsed by the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, who represents landlords (even if they people tell them that landlords are mostly mom and pop, don’t believe them).

They would do well to endorse someone who understands their situation.  Daniel Lee is currently a renter, and a renter who received a rent hike.  While he was able to survive it, he knows that many families (including some of his former neighbors) are not able to, and that something must be done to control the explosion of rent hikes that are going on all over Culver City.

And they should definitely vote for Meghan Sahli-Wells, who has been the lonely voice on the Council speaking up for renters during her time on the City Council.  She called for a conversation on the issue of affordable housing, even though this can be unpopular.  And the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles organized so that the current Council members, all of whom were endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce sidetracked this conversation.  Just last Monday, Steve Rose, CEO of the Chamber chastised Meghan for asking questions on a development project and mischaracterized her record as being opposed to affordable and workforce housing. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

If you want to learn more about the role of the Chamber in impeding progress on affordable housing over the years, you can read my post “Let’s Vote for Change, Culver City!”  Whether it’s impeding affordable housing or to enhance protections for renters, I can assure you, the Chamber of Commerce priorities align very well with those of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles.  They endorsed the exact same candidates: Eriksson, Wyant and Tiggs.

In contrast, the Culver City Democratic Club, the Sierra Club, the Culver City Community Coalition and many others who care about renters and the environment have endorsed Meghan Sahli-Wells, Daniel Lee and Thomas Small.

If you are looking out for your interests as renters, those are your better choices.

 

 

 

 

Let’s vote for change, Culver City!

For too many years our City Council has been dominated by candidates who are endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce.  While to some this has meant that our City has become a wonderful hub of economic activity, others have been watching a tremendous imbalance develop between our economic development needs and our equally important need to have an adequate supply of housing. More and more Culver City families have to spend an unreasonably large part of their budget just to keep a roof over their heads. As this report points out:

Housing is at the confluence of individuals’ and families’ economic well-being, educational attainment and health, and it provides a strong platform for economically robust, sustainable communities.

It’s no secret that our entire region is facing a severe housing affordability crisis.  Just last year, the LA Times editorialized: L.A. has a serious housing crisis and it’s time for city officials to do something about it. This was after Mayor Garcetti had announced the ambitious goal to build 100,000 homes by 2021.

Do we hear any such concern from our Culver City leaders? Any such passion for addressing this critical issue?

The only strong voice on this issue over the last years has been Meghan Sahli-Wells. As Mayor, she was bold enough to suggest that our community engage in the tough conversation about housing affordability.  Instead of taking her up on it, the rest of the Council, all Chamber of Commerce endorsed, and the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles sidetracked the conversation by suggesting that “rent control” was coming to Culver City.  Never mind that thanks to the Costa Hawkins Act of 1995, the kind of rent control that cities like Santa Monica and Los Angeles have is no longer even available.

Refusing to address the housing affordability problem is not new in Culver City. Culver City has a sordid history when it comes to affordable housing.  Steve Rose, who as of this writing has been the President/CEO of the Chamber of Commerce for 29 years, was on the Culver City Council and its Redevelopment Agency from 2000-2008. Curiously, it was during those exact same years that a series of articles in the LA Times studied the way California cities gave short shrift to affordable housing. The lack of investment in affordable housing partially explained why Redevelopment Agencies, which provided the mechanism and funding for cities to use tax increment dollars to improve their communities, were dissolved.  According to the L.A. Times analysis, at least 120 municipalities — nearly one in three with active Redevelopment Agencies — spent a combined $700 million in housing funds from 2000 to 2008 without constructing a single new unit, and Culver City was one of the worst offenders. While California law required that agencies set aside 1/5 of their funds towards affordable housing, Culver City spent over $33 million and built ZERO units.

Without Redevelopment Agency funding, Culver City and other cities are struggling to find ways to fund affordable housing. And despite his role in creating this situation locally, Rose continues to argue for the same priorities. Just a few days ago, in one of his relentless attacks on Meghan, he explained:,

“It comes down to creating an incentive program to build affordable housing vs. an ordinance that requires affordable housing. It is a belief in the free enterprise system or a belief in government. Simple as that.”

It seems that he believes that when it comes to economic development, it’s totally okay to spend tax dollars, but when it comes to providing adequate housing for our community, he leaves that up to the free market.

However, this is not about the beliefs of Steve Rose, the person.  It is about his position on this issue and the position of the Chamber of Commerce, which he represents. It is about the interests that, as an institution, they in turn represent. It is about the candidates that they support. This is about the priorities that they hold for improving our community.

Here is what is key to remember about the affordability crisis: it is SO severe, that we are no longer simply talking about providing adequate housing for the poor families in our community.  We have neglected this problem for so long, the affordability crisis is now affecting our middle class families.  We cannot keep our head in the sand any longer.

We cannot afford to have Culver City led by the Chamber of Commerce.

It’s time for new voices, who speak to all of our needs. This April 12th, let’s vote for change.

 

 

 

Why we NEED Daniel Lee on the City Council

A famous English painter once said about perspective “What you see depends not only on what you look at, but also on where you look from”.  I believe that the quality of the decisions a City Council makes is in direct proportion to the breadth of the perspectives of its members. For many years now, the perspectives that have been brought to the table are rather homogeneous. When it comes time to vote, it’s important to consider the perspectives that candidates bring to determine whether we want them as leaders and policy makers.

I believe that among the candidates in this election, Daniel Lee stands out. While there is much to be said of his perspective as an African American man, I’m wanting to write about other perspectives that he brings, that are probably as important.

Daniel Lee is a renter. Not just any renter, but one who very recently got a rent hike. Thankfully, this didn’t force him out of his home, but he understands too well that not everyone can afford to take an increase in their rent. He has watched the impact of rent hike evictions up close. From Daniel’s perspective, things look very different than they look for people who own a home, a perspective that has been very well represented on the Council over the years. Daniel understands the need for affordable housing, he understands that the City needs to address the concerns of many residents who have been given rent hikes, and of many who are fearful they will.  He understands that currently, the City does not have protections that other cities have.   And this understanding and the willingness to do something about it have been hugely lacking on the Council.

But that’s not all.

Daniel Lee is a community activist.  He understands that for change to come in communities, people need to put their time into it, and work together.  You can’t miss the importance of Daniel bringing this perspective to our City Council at this time. We’re in the midst not simply of a Presidential election, but of an unprecedented campaign by both the Chamber of Commerce, and the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, to block any effort that could bring protections to the 45% of residents of our community who rent.  Or the many among us who still believe that we need to have affordable housing in Culver City. Not ‘attainable’ housing, as Goran Eriksson, suggests.  Here’s how  the US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development talks about this:

Who Needs Affordable Housing?

Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care. An estimated 12 million renter and homeowner households now pay more than 50 percent of their annual incomes for housing. A family with one full-time worker earning the minimum wage cannot afford the local fair-market rent for a two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the United States.

But perspective is not enough. You also have to be a thoughtful decision maker if you are going to be an effective Council member. And on this point, Daniel also stands out.  He uses public transportation by choice.  He makes this decision not simply as a part of his commitment to sustainability, but because he is a man intent on meeting his community personally.   Not all of us can make a decision like this one, but it says a lot about someone when he makes decisions with both the environment and his community in mind.

I’m voting for Daniel Lee for City Council. Please join me.